The doctrine & discipline of divorce : restor'd to the good of both sexes, from the bondage of canon law and other mistakes to the true meaning of Scripture in the law and gospel compar'd : wherein also are set down the bad consequences of abolishing or condemning of sin, that which the law of God allowes and Christ abolisht not

i-y

• THE

Dcdrine and Dirciplioe

DIVORCE;

Reftoi'd to the good of both SEX ES^

From the Bondage of CANON LAW, and

other miftakes , to the true meaning of Scripture in
the LAW and GOSPEL compared.

Wherein alfo arc let down the bad confcquences of a-

bohfliing or condemning of Sin , that which the Law
of God allows , and Ghrift abolilht not.

Now the feccnd time Revis'd , and much Augmented,

In Two BOOKS:

To the Parliament of England^ with the AlFembly.

The Author 7. M.

Matth. I J. 5'2.
Every Scribe inflniUcd to the Kifigdom of Heavn , is like the
Mifler of a Houfe which bringeth out of his Treafnrj things
new and old.

Prov. 18. II.
He that anfwereth a matter before he heareth it , it is folly
andfuame unto him.

LONDON:
Imprinted In the Year 1645,

JLj.

1

To the PARLIAMENT of ENGLAND,
wfcKthe ASSEMBLY.

F it were fcrio^flv askty and it wouldbe no unt-lmcly qnefflion^ Renowned Par^
I'uzmcnt^ (eUEi yljfcmblj , who of all Teachers and Madders that ever have
tanrht^ hath drawn the mofi Difciples after him^ both in Religion^ and in man-
ners^ it might not be untruly anfwer'dy Cufiom. Though vertue be commended for
the mofi perfwafive in her Theory ; and Coiafcience in the f lain d:monfi ration of
the fpirlt, finds mofi evincing, yet whether it be the fecret of Divine will, or the O-
riainal bl.ndntfs we ure born in, fj it happnsfor the mofi p.zrt^thrit Cuftomftillis
phntly receiv d for the befi infiruEior.Except it be^becaufe h.r method is fo glib
andeafie,in fome manner like to that Vifion of Ezekiel, rowLngf^p her ft'dd-:ji
bcok^of implicit kpowledg^ for him that will, to take and fw allow down at plea-
fur e 5 which proving but of bad nourijhment in the concoBion^ as it vcas heedl.fs
in the devouring, puffs up unhealthily a certain big face of pretended learning, .
mfiaken among credulous men, for the wholefom habit of foundnefs and good
confiitution, but is indeed no other than that fwoln vifage of counterfeit know^
Icdre and literature, which not only in private mars our Edtdcation, but alfo in
tublick^ is the common Climer into every Chair ^ where either Religion is preach' ty
or L-1W r~ ported, filing cache fiat e of life and prof cffi on With abjtii ar.d ftrviU
principles, depr effing the high and Heaven- born fpirit of man , far beneath the
condition wherein either God created him, or fin hath funkjnm. To purfue the
Allegory, Cufiom being but a meer face, as Eccho is a metr voice, refis not in her
unacccmplfement , until by fe crct inclinationf^e accorporate her fi If with error,
who being a blind and Serpentine body without ahead, wilUndy accepts what he
wants^ and fupplies what her incompleatnefs went feeking. Hence it is, that Er-
for fupports Cufiom, Cufiom count nances Error : And thefe two between them
would perf cute and chafe away all truth and f olid wifdom out of humane life^
were it not that God, rather than man^ once in many Ages, calls together the
prudent and-reiigicus counf els of men, deputed toreprcfs the incroachments, and
towork^ojf the inveterate blots and obfcurities wrought upon cur minds by the
fubtle infinuating of Error and Cufiom ; who with the numerous and vulgar train
of their followers, make it their chief defign to envj and crj do vn the indufiry of
free rerfrnin'T^ und.r the terms of humor and innovation 5 as If the Womb of
TcemingTruth were to be clos'dup, ifjhe pre fume to bring forth ouqht that frts
not with their unchew'd notions and fuppoftions, Againfi; which notorious injury
and abufe of mans free foul, to te^tifie andopp:>fe the utmofi that fudy and true;
I sib our can attain, heretofore the incitement cf men reputed grave hath led m2
among th.rs ; and now the duty and the right of an infiruMed Christian calls
me-ethrough the chance of good or evil roport, to be the fie Adv.cate of a dif-
c?}svt'na>w't tr^ft'.T, a high enterf rife Lords and Commons, a high entcrpnfe and
a hard, and^uch as every fevcnth Son of a fcventh Son dots not venture on.^Nor

A 2 have''

A

To the Parilament of Ergland.,

havj I amldfi the cUmor offo much envy andimpirtinence^ whether to appeal, b'm

to the conccpirje offo muvhpiaj and wtfdom here affrmbt d. Bringing in mj hands an

ancient and mo fir neccjfarj^ mofl. chantabU, andyct mofl injur d St aintc .'./Mofcs :

not repeal' d tvir t?j him who had the authority, [pit thrown afidewith much ia-

confd:rat ne, Lcl-, andi-r therithhi^flj of Canonic ^A ignorance , as once the whcle

law n\is by fom- fuch I kj conveyance In J o(iah'*s ti?»e. ^htd he whoficallindjavor

thjayn.ndmtiit of iiny old neg! U.d grievance in Church or State , or in the daily

com'f of life J f he h^ -^rtedwith abjb ies of mindthdt m.iy raife him to fo high a-t

nnd.rt caking. I gr.i^i^ h^ ha^h already much )vheref not to repent him-, jetl;t me

urreedhim^not to b: i-j: / .r-m.iti of aiy Tj^if-j-jdrfd opiniofif unlef his r-.fi'iutians be

[irmly le.:red tn a [cjf/jire andconjlant mind , not confc oiu to it f If of any dfrvjd

fHame,_ a-id reg-:rdLfi of ungrounded fufpicions. For this let him be (ure he J' all be

boarded pnfentlj by the rud:rfort^but not by dfcreet and w.lln->iriurd r,:isn,\v th a

thoufaudtdle d.fcaitts and farm fes. Who when-.they cannot confut ; the Laftjoynt cr

fineiv of any pa ff age in the booh^; yet God forbid that truth f':ould be iruih^becaufs

^hey have a boftrous conceit ojfome pretences in thj Writer. But were they not mors

hufe andinqu'fitive than the y^pofi^le coyhn^ends, they would hear him at leaft, re-

joyclng,fb ^he truth be preacht,whether of envy or other pretence whatfb'

ever : For Truth is as impoffible to be foil' d by any outward touch,ayt he Sun beam.

Thomh this ill hap wait on her nativity.^ thatj}:e never comes into theworld^ bat

I ke a Bafiard^ to the ignominy of him that brought her forth : till Time the Mid-

. w ferath.r than the Another of Truth ^have wajlot and f alt ed the Infant^ declard'

her le<iitrmate,and churcht the Fath.r of his ycung Minerva , from the necdl.fs

caufclof his purjation. Tour felves can befi;witn?fs this^worthy Fatriots,andb.t-

ter willy no doubt h.reafter : for who among ye of the for emo!} that have tra-

irji^ild rajj:r behalf to the good of Church or State, hath not been oft en traduct

to be th' a rent cf his o'iVn by-ends , und.r pretext of Reformation. So much the

more Ifo/dl nyt heunjuf: to hope^that h.Wevtr Infamy or Envy may work-in ether

mm tJ d) hrr fr.tful w'dl aj^oinf this difcosirfe , yet that the experience of your-

owjt upr^'jtncfs mf interpreted, will put ye m mlndto (jive it free audience and

ocn.roHS^eonftruHion. What though the brood .of Belial^f /j^ draife of men.to wh^^m

ns l^ btrty is phafing,but unbridVd and v igabond lufi without p ile or partition, will

lauihbroad prhaps .^ to fee fo great a jlrength of Scripture mufvrii^g up infa^

voHT'-ias they f:4ppif:^ of their debaucheries; they will know b.ttcrwh.n theyfj-aH'

ijence Larn^.that honffi liberty is the great ejf foe to dijloonefi^ licence, Andwhat

thouTh others out of a watcrijh and queafeconfcience , becaufe ever ctafy and'.

never y it found, willj'ail and fancy to themfclues, that injury and licence is .the

hefi: of this Bo oJ^? Did not the difie??7pcr of their ownfi-omachs afeB'thcmwlth ^

a di^^y Ms'grim^ they wmldfoonti^ up their tong^ues, and difcern them ^rlves likj

: i.-i;/' Affvnan blafphemi r dlt.h it while reproaching not man but the Almighij- the

\0\yiQtxtQi\^X'd£i'^-'^h'jmthey dj not deny to have beUwgiv'd his oivn facrcd

peoph

With the Airemlly.

p^opU with this very allowance^whichthcj now call injury and licence^ andd^.\*^^
cry Jham^ on^ and will d) yet a while ^ till thty get a little cordtal [obrlety to [ettU
their qptdmingz^cal. Bat this qH?ftion concerns not us perhaps: Indeed mans di-
fpojition though prone to fearch after vain curiofties^yet when points of difjiculty
are to be difcuft^ appertaining to the removal of unr^afonahle wrong and burden
from the p:rplext life of our brother^ it is mcr edible how coldJoow dull, and far
fr^m allf How-feeling we are, without the fpur of flf-cor;Cernmcnt,T. t if the wf-
dom^the JHsilce^the purity of God be to be clear dfro?n foulefl Imputations which
are ,2 it yet avoid.d-if charity be not to be degrad.d andtrodd*n diwn undr aci^
vilOr-^inancey if A<f<-itrimony be not to be advanc't like th.tt exalted perdition
wrttt'n of to the Theflalonians, above all that.is called God, or ggodnefs, nay^
a^ai/ij} them both ^t hen I dare affirm there will be found in the Contents of this
Book^, that which' may concern us alLTouit concerns chiefly ^Vorthies in Parlia-
ment, on whom, as on cur ddiverers, all our grievances and cares,hy the merit of
y:Hr eminence and fortitude are^ devolv'd. Me it concerns next^ having with much
labour and faithful diligence firft found out, or at leafrwith afearl.fsand com-
m.'iyncative candor fir fir pub lijht to the manfefi good of Chriftendom^that which
calling to witnefs every thing mortal and immortal,! believe unfainediy to be true.
Let not other menthink^their confcience bou :d to fearch continually aftyr truths
to pray for enlightning from above ^to publifto what they- thmk^t hey have fo go-
rain'd^ and dsbar me from conceiving my f elf tyd by the fame duties. Te have
now, doubtLfs by the favour and appointment of God, ye have now in your hands a
^(Treat and popuLus Nation to r ^fyrm ; from what corruption, what blindnefs in
KJi'Tion, ye kno-:K> well; tn what a de generate and fall n fpir it from the appre-
heyfion of native liberty ^ and true manhncfs, I' am fure ye find : with what un-
hopind:d licence rujhing to whcredoms a'dadultcries, ne^ds not long eKqairy : in-
fomush that the fears which m:n have of too ftriU: a dfcipUns , perhaps- exeeid
the h Vts that can be in others, of ever introducing it with any. great fuccefs.
What if I JJoJuldtell ye now of difpenfatiens and indui-ences,to give a little the
reins, to let them play and nibble w. th the bait a while 5 a people as hard of heart
A4 th/:t Eojp^ion C lorn that went to Cin-3^3iX\.T'h! sis the com-mondoBrine that
adulterous and injurious div.rces were not connivd only, but with eye open al-
lowed of old for hard ^efs of heart. But that opi}iie)n^I trujj','h'y th?n this following
ar eurnent hath been v;^ell. read, will be Lft for one ofthemyfierirs of an indul-
gent AntL^hr-fl:,tofarmout mceft by , and thofe his other tributary p llut'^ons.
What mddie way can be tak^n then^ may fome interry.pt, if we mujv neither t:<rn
tO: the right ^ nor to the Lft, and that the peoplj.hate to be rformd: Aetarkjhen,
fudges and La.v-giv.ers, andyewh^e Office it is to be our Teachers ^ fr I will
uttyrnO'W a doBrine^ if ever any other, though ne^letled or not uud.r flood, yet cf
great- and powerful iraportance to thegeverning ofmar.kindjle who wjf: h w -Kid

■eftrain the reafonable Soul of r/^an within due bounh, m^ijt firfl himfelf f-ijow
prfeciiy^ h'Qwfar thsTrrritory and Dominivn extends of jujl and hon^flhbcrty.

refi

To the Parliament of EnghivJ^

\A5 Utile mn'sf he ojf^r to bind that which God hath loofn*^^ as to loopn that
which h^ hath hof4nd. 'Trje ignor;ince and mifl-aks of this high point, hath heapt
up on2 huge half cf all the miftry that hath been fince Adam. In the Gofpel we
fioall read afuperciimas crcw of Mafters^whofe holinefs, or rather whofe evil eye^
arievinfthat God fi'culd bs^fo facil toman, was t) f t flraiter limits to obedi-
ence than God hath fet^ to injiave the dignity of man^ to pnt agarrifon upon his
neck^of empty and over- digmfi^d Precepts : And we /ball read onr Saviour never
more griev'd andtrouhld, than to meet with [uch a pievijh madn fs among men
againfi their own frsedom. How can we expeEi him to be Lfs ojfendid with p^s^
whenmUch of the fame folly frail be found yet remaining where it leayt ought .^
to the per:Jlnng of thoufands. The greatest b^ird-n in the world tsfuperjlition^ not
only of Cer. monies in the Churchy but of imannary and f career ow fins at home^
What gr eat. r weaJ^ing, wh.tt more fubtle fir atagem againfl: our Chnfiian war^
fare,whenbefides thegrefs body of realtranfgrefiionsto tncounter^wejhall be ter-
rific dby a vain and floadowy ?nenc:cingof fzults that are not : When things in-
dijferent Jhall be fet to ov.r-front us und^r the banners of fin^ what wonder if we
be routed.^and by this art of our Adverfarj^fall into the fubj.Uion of w.rB and
deadliefi ojfences.The fuperflition of the Papifl ;>,t0ucji not5taft not, when God
bids both : andours is, part not, feparate not, when God and charity both per-
mits andcommands\.,tM2X\-^om\\\\x\%^hQ done with chanty, faith S. Paul:
and his M-ifier faith She \s the fulfilling of the Law. Tct now a civilian indif-
ferent,a fometime diffwaded Law of marriage, mufibeforc't upon us to fulfil, not
only without charity, but againfi her. No place in Heav'n or Earth, except Hell^
where char: ty may not enter : yet marriage the Ordinance of our folace and con-
tentment, the remedy of our lonelinefs will not admit now cither of charity or
mercy t9 come in and mediate or pacifie the ficrcencfs of this gentle Ordinance^
the unremedied lonelinefs of this remedy. Advife ye well fupreme Senate,if charity
be thpu excluded and expulfi, how ye will d fend the untainted honour of jour
cwn anions and proceedinys. He who marries, intends as Ittij to corfipire his own
ruine,as he that fwears Allepance.-and as awhole people is in proportion to an ill
Government, fo is one man to an ill marriage. If they againfi ary Aut herity, Co-
vnant, or Statute, may by the foveraign ediEi of charity , fave not only their
lives, but honefi liberties from unwortkj bondage,as well fnay he aiainfi- any pri-
vate Gov' n^int, which he never enter'd to his mifchi<>f,redee?n himf elf from unfup-
portable difi'urbances to hone ft peace, and jufi contentment : And much the ra^
ther, for that torepfi the hi^hefi: Magiftrate though tyranniz^^ng ^ Gcd never
gave us exprefs allowance, only he gave us reafon^ chanty. nature, andgood ex-
ample to bear us out ', but in this Economical misfortune thus to demean our
f elves, befides the warrant of thofe four great DireBors ^ which d^th as jufily
belong hither, \ve have an exprefs Law of God, and [uch a Law, as wh.r.of
cur Saviour With a flrm'a threat forbid the abrogating. For no tffiEh of tyran-

' nj

with the AlTen^bly.
nj c4tt more hfdVj on theCommon'tvealth^tban this honfltold unhapplnefs on thefd.
fmlj.JfjdfarerveiallhopeoftrfieReformatton in theStAte{ff'hiic- Imh anevH asiim
lies nndifcernci or unregarded h the ho^tfe.On the redrefs whereof depends not or.if
the ffintUdi ar.d order Ij life of our grown met^^hpiithe tvilimg and careful cducanon
of oi-'r children. Let this therefore be ncr-^examind th}6 tenure and (lecholdof man*
kwdjhis native and dcmefltck^Charurgi'v'^. hs by agr eater Lord thm tlnit .Si^xon
King the Confejfor.Let theflatutes of God be tmrid ovcrbefcannd a-'^cw and con-
fider'd not altogether by the narrow tnteiled;uals ofquoiathniiis andcorr^mon pfa-
ces^but'as wat the ancient ri^ht of Cetinctls) by rr>en of vs>hat iiherJ projeffion fo:-*
ver i of eminent fptrit and b^eedingy joyn'd wiihadtjfuje and var'iom l^ncyy edgeof
divine and human thiyigs-^able to Oailance and define ggod and evU^nght & vvrongy
throughout every /fate oflife*^ able tofhe^v us the ways of the Lord fir ait or faithful
as they are^n:t fall of crankj andcontradtdions^and pit'fdlh^g difpenies.but wub
divine infighi and benignity mcafurd out to th? proportion of each mi.ui avdfptrit^
tach temper anddifp^fttion created fo different each (ion: other^^ndyct ry the sk^fi
cfwife conducting^ all to become tintform tn Vertpte, Ts expedite tk-efe krins »'fr^
Worthy a learned and memorableSynod-^while our enemies expect to fee the expeda'
tion of the Church tifd out rpith dependencies & independencies h3i>rthe) will co'/n*-
pound ^and in what Calends .Doubt not^rrorthy Senator s^to vindicate ihrjacrcdha-
Kour andjiidgmetst of^ok^yourprrdeiepryfrom theff:-a low c^mmcnimg ofScha-
iafl'ickj and Canonist, Doubt not after him to reach out to yonr fieady hji-^-ds to the
mfinfertnd and wearied life ofman-^ to refiere this his loft heritage, into the hopt-
(held ft ate ; tvherewithbefure that peace and /uvejbe be^ffibftjien^ce cf aChrijhan
family will return home fr&m whence they are now bar,t^,t ; places of proftiiHtim
will be iefs haunted , the neighbors bed lefs attempted [ the yik^ <f tr^dtnt a>>d
tnanh dtfc'ipline will he generally fubmit ted to ^ fober and vo ell- ordered living rptll
foonfpring up in the Co r/nnone- wealth. Te have an author gre*it beyond axceprw^^
Mofes; and one yet greater ^ bewhoheda'd'infrom abcUfhinr . every fn allefl:
jot and tittle of precious eejuity contained in that Law , with a more ac< urate an. I
lafiing Maforcth , than either the Synagogue of Ezra, or the G.'l!-b.:-n School
At Tiberias hath left us. Whatever elfe ye can exdi , rvillfcarce concern a thi d
fxrtof the Brit tifk name : but^ the benefit and good of this your magnantmcus
example > will eafily fpreadfar beyond the banks of Tweed a^d the ^.n'r,]^:^ Jlcs,
It would not be the fir ^, or fecond ttme^ fince our ancier^t Druides , b) nbom this
Hand was the Cathedral of Ph't'ofophy to France , ieft off their Pagan Fttes,
that trgland hath had this honour Vouchfaft fnm Heav'n^ togive out Reforma-
tion to the world Who was it but our Engiijh Conftancine that bapitcd the Ko'
man Empire ? Who was it but r^e Northumbrian Willibrodr,^KfiWi' ifrlde of
Devon with their followers^ werethe flrf} JpofilesofGcrmzny} whj but Alcuin
4indWkk\e(our Ccuntreymenopen* d the eyes of Europe, the one in arts, the other in
Mgligion, Let m England /or^^? her precedcn(;e of teaching nations horv to live.

r " Know

To the Parliament of EngUnid ^ 'He,

Kfiow^Worthles , l^y!o\\> an^ exer ift the priviledge ef jour honour d Cdfifitrey. A
greater t tie I here hringje , iheiii6 either h the p'^iver crinth polk) of Rome to
give hr Monarchs ? thuglonoHi afl: will pile ye the df finders of Charity^ JVer u
this Jit the hgh fl irtfcripti'^n that ixull ad rn fo religicHS and fo holy a defence at
thisf:Jould^efe the pure and fiacre d Lars of God , mid hk jet purer and more ficred
name cfjrinq tkcr^fdvei tojcu firfl , of all Chriftian reformtrs to he accfMi'tedfrorv
the lo*!g (i ff. r*d t xgodly attri utc of pa^remz.ir>g ndpAterj. Defer not to wipe offirf'
jiaKt'y thefe imptdtative blurrs andflains cafi by rude fancies upon the thune And
bsauty it [elf of inviolable hoiiy^cfs : lift fovne oih.rpecple more devout and wife than
y^ejbercave ns this 'fferdimm^j-^talglorj ^r Wonted prer' gative ^of beirg thcprft af*
fertors in ever j great vind cation, for rriB a^ far 06 my part leads ;??f, / have al-
ready n?y great eft gain affurar.ce and inward fat i.( fa [it on to have domly. this nahiffg
unworthy of an honefl lije^^.nd ft tidies w 11 efr.piofd.H'ith what event timong the wife
and right underflanding handful of men ^ I am fecure. But how aynong the drove of
Cuftom and Prfudice tht's will be relifht by fuch whofe capacity . Jince their yonth
run ahead into the eafie creek cf ^ S)ftem or a Medulla Jai's there At Will under tho
M'Wn phjfiognomy of tJo^'f ur,labourd audiments,for them^what their tafle Will hy
J have aifofurety fuffcient , frc7n the entire league that hath beenever between for'
mal ignorance and grave ob(linary, Tft when I remepjberthe little that &ur Saviour
could prevail about this doctrine of Charity againfi the crabbedt.extuifls of his time^
J make no Wonder, hut reFl- confident that Who fo prefers either Matromcny or other
Ordinance hi fore the good of man and th'> plain exigence of Charity , let him profefs
Papift or Frotejla*'it or what he will, he k no better than a Pharife, and t^vdtrftandf
■ffot the Grfpcliwhom 04 a mifnterp^eter cf Chrtft J openly prcteft again ft \ and pre
vokfhimto the trialof the truth before all the worldiandlet him betbinJ^him withal
how he will foder up the fhif ting flaws of his ungirt perryiijpons^his venial and unvt"
fiial difpences ^wherewith the Law of God pardoning Q/- unpard^ ninghath binfljam!'
fully branded for want of heeding] ffng , tC' have eluded and baffi'd out all Faith
mdChaflity from tbe Marriage-bed of t''^ at holy feed ^ with pJitic k^and judicial a-
d^lteries. J feeJ^not to feduce the ftmplc and illiterate^ my errand is to find out the
choice ft and the learned^ ^who have this high gift of mfdom to anfwerfiltdly^or to he
€onviffCt, I crave it from the piety ^t he learning^andtho prudence which is hoHsdin
this place. li wight perhaps mi^re fitly have been writttn in another tongue, and I had
donefo, but that th efteem I have of my Countries judgment, and the love I bear to
my native language to ferve it firfl with what I endeavour, made mefpeaJ^it thttf^
^re I affay the verdifi of outiandiflj readers, j^nd perhaps alfo here I might have en-
ded vamelefs.but that the addrefs ofthefe lines chiefly to the Parliament of England
wight havefcem'd ingrateful not to ack>^oW/edge by whcfe Religiom care ^unwearied
'Watchfulnefs^coHragions and he^ .cickjffolutions ^lenjoy the peace andftudious lei fare
tc remain Tlie Honourer and Aaenoaju cf dscir Nob e wcrch and vcrtue?,

John Milton.

i*» c*» ^t* ^fr> <yfiX . ^f% *** f^lh. *l*9 cyin> C.U *,jh .. ^%t <%j^ cyfe* c.ts9 Crfc»

DOCTRINE

AND

DISCIPLINE

OF

DIVORCE,

Rejlo/d to the good of both S e x e s*

I. BOOK.

The Preface.

That Ad an Is the occafton c.fhU oron wifeneSy In mofi of thofe evils which
he imputes to Gods hflihwg. 7 he ahfurditj of our Cansnifts in their
Decrees ab9Ht Divorce, The Chrifiian Imperial Laws framed vrith
more EcjHity, 'the opinion of Hugo Grotias , and Paulus Fagius :
And the fUrpofe in general ef this Difcotirfe,

'"% h ny men, whether it be their fate, or fond opini-

"^ on, eafily perfwade themfelves, if God would

but be pleas'd a while to withdraw his juRpu-

nifhmems from us, and to reftrain what power

e ther the Devi],orany earthly enemy hach to

Work us woe. that then itisns nature would find

iramediate r#0: and releafement from all evils.

But verily tliey who think fo, if they be fuch ag

hive a mind Isrs^e enough to take into their thoughts a general fur-

veyof humine thing', would foon prove themfelvcs in that opinion

for dcceiv'd. For though it were granted us by divir.e indulgence

li CO

2 Tij: 7)j5{nne and T>s[cif line (^/Divorce,

to be exempt from al! tint can be haraiful to us from without > yet
the perve fenefs of our folly is To bene , that we (hould never iin
hammering out of our own heart;, as it were out of a flmr, the feeds
rindfparkles of new mifery to our felvcs , till all were in ablaze a-
gain. And no marvel if out of our own hearts , for thsy are cvilj
but even out of thofe things whic:i God zr.t?:nt us , either for a prin-
cipal good, or a pure contentment , we are Hill h.itch.ng and contri-
ving upon our felves matter of concinaal forrow and perplexity.
What greater good to rasn than that revealed rule , whereby God
vouchfafes to fhewu^ how he would be worfhipt ? And yet thit not
righily uncierftood , became the caufe that once a famous vmn in if-
raeicoM not but oblige hisconfcience t® be the facrificer ; or if nor,
the jiylorofhis innocent and onely daughter. And was the caufe ofc-
times thic Armies of valiant men have given up their throats to a
heathenilh enemy on the Sab' ath-day : fondly thinking thdr defen-
live refinance to be ss then a thing unlawful. What thing more in-
ftitufed CO thefolaceand delight of man than marriage f and yet iht
mif interpreting of fome Scripture diredcd mainly againft tihe abu-
fers of the Law for divorce given by Mofes , hath chang d ihe blef-
(Ing of Matrimony not feldom into a familiar and co inhabiting
mifchief ; at leaft into a drooping and difconfolite houdiold cap'
tivity , without refuge or redempnon. So ungovernM and fo wild a
race doth fupcrRition run us from one extream of abufed liberty
into the other of unmerciful redraint. For although God in the
firft ordaining of marriage , taught us to whst end he did it,in words
exprefly implying the apt and cheerful converfation of man with
woman, to comtort and refrefi-i him of the evil and folitary life,
not mentioning the purpofe of generation till afterwards , as being
but a fecondary end indignity , though not in neceiHry ; yet now, if
?ny two be but once handed in theChDrc'^ , and have tailed in any
fort the. nuptial bed , let them (and themfelves never fo miftak'n
in their difpofitions through dny error, concealment, crmifidvtn-
fare, thac through their d-ff-rent tempers , though:s, and conflitu-
tions , they can neither be to one another a remedy ?g.inR lonelincfs,
nor live in any union or contentment al! their daus , yet they (hall,
f ) they be but found fuirably we:pon'J to the ieall po/libriry of
fenfuJ injoyment , be made , fpighcof /imipaihj to fadge together,
and combine as tliey may 'o their unfpeakab'evvearifomnefs and de-
fpair of all fjci ible c'eligh: in the ordinance which God eQsb'ifhc
to that very end. Whit a calimity is this ; 2nd as the wife-man if he

were

' RePor'd to J be good of both Sexes, 5'

were alive, would fighou: in his own Phrafe, what a/rf tvll U this
fifider the Suk !, All which we can refer julUy to no Other authoic
than the Canon Law and her adherents , not confuliing with chari-
ty , the incerpreter and guid of our faich , but reHing in themeer
element of the Text • doubtlefs by the policy of the devil to make
th:it gracious ordinance become nnjupportable , that what with men
not Itating to venrure upon wedlock, and What with men wearied
outofir, all inordinate licence might abound. It was for many sges
that marriage lay in difgrace with moft of the ancient Dodors, as a
work of the fitfli, almoll a defilemeui: , wholly deny'd to Priefis, and
the fccond time diflwaded to all , as he that reads Tertnllia'/t or lerom
may fee ac large. Afterwards ic was brought fo Sacramental , that
no adultery or dcfertion could difTolveit j and this is the fenfeofour
Canon Courts in Ef^glnr^d to this day , but no other reforrred
Church elfe : yet there remains in them alfo a burden on it as hea-
vy as i\\t other two were difgraceful or fuperAitious , and of as
much iniquity , croHing a Law not onely written by Afe/f/, butcha-
raderM in us by nature, of more antiquity and deeper ground than
marriage it felf-, which Law is to force nothing agiinft the faultlefs
proprieties of nature : yet that this may be colourably done, our Sa-
viours words touching divorce , are as it werecongeaTd into aflony
rigor , inconfiftent both with his Dodrine and his office, and tha'c
which he preacht oneiy to the confcicnce, is by Canonical tyranny
fnatcht into the compulfive Cenfure of a Judicial Court , where
Laws are imposed even againft the venerable and feccet power of na-
tures itDpreifion, to love, what ever caufe be found to loath. Which
is a hainous barbarifme both againft the honour of marriage , the
dignity of man and his foul, the goodnefs of Chriftianity , and all
the humane refpeds of civility. Notwithftanding that fome the
wifeft and graveft among theCbriRianEmperours, who had about
them, toconfult with , thofe of the Fathers then living; who for
their learning and holinefs of life, are ftill with us in great renown,
have made their Qatutes and edids concerning this debate far more
eafieaud relenting in ma ny ncceflary cafes, wherein the Canon is
inflexible. And Hf4go Grotim , a man of thefe times', one of the
beft learned, fecms not obfcurely to adhere in his perfw^fion to the
equity of thofe Imperial Decree?, in his Notes upon the Evangelift/'^
much alhying the outward roughnefs of the Text , which hath for
the moft part been too immoderately expounded ^ and excites the
diligence of others to inquire further into this queftion , as contain-

fi 2 ing

4 The 7)j^rine and T)i^ci^Une ofDWorce^

T)\ng many points that h.ive not yet been explain'd. Which ever like-
ly to rem=^inintric^.te and hcpelefs Uj.-on the fuppofkiors commonly
Ouck to the au:horicy of T^^.uhis 1: agius^ one fo learned and fo emi-
nent in EngUndonct^ if it might perfv;,^2de, would ftrait pcqu'irt us
with a fo'ution of thefe differences , no lefs prudent than compendi-
ous. He in his Comment on the Pcmatcuch^ dotsbted not to m?.intain
that Divorces might be as lawfully prrmitted by theMngiftrate to
Chi-if[iin% as they were to the Jews. But becaufe he is but brief, and=
thcfe things of great confequence nor to be kept obfcure, 1 {h:ill con-
ceive it nothing above my duty , either for the difEcu'ty or the cen-
fure that may pafs thereon, to communicite fuch thoughts as i alfo
h:ive had, and do cff.r them now in this general labour of Reforma-
tion, to the candid view of botlj Church and Mi'giilrare , especially
becaufe I fee it the hope of good men , that thofe irregular and un-
ipiritu.il Courts have fpun their utriioR ^Mt in this L..nJ, and fome
better courfe muft now be confiituced. This therefore iliall be the-
task ani period of this difcourfe to prove, firftthat other reafons of
Divorce, befides Adultery , were by the Law of Mo[es^ and arc yec
to be allow'd by the ChriQian M^giftrate £5 a piece of Juftice, and-
that the words of Chriftare not hereby contraried. Next, that to
prohibit abfolutely any Divorce whatfoever^exccptthofc which M&-
ps excepted, is againO: the reafon of Law, as in due place 1 (h?\\ fhew
outof Fagi us with many additions. He therefore who by adventu--
ring, (hiii be fo happy as with fuccefs to light the way of fuch an.
expedient liberty and truth as this, (hall reftore the much-wrong'd
and over-forrow'd (late of Matrimony, not only to thofe merciful
tMd life-giving remedies of Mefts^ but, as much as may be, to that
f^rene and biifsful condition it was in at the beginning, and (hull de--
ferveof alUpprehenfivc men confideringtbe troublet and dillerapers
which for want of thisinfight have been fo ok in Kingdoms, in States
and Families) (hall deferveto be rcckon'd among thepublick Bene-
factors of civil and humane life , above the Inventors of Wine and
Oyi i for this is a far dearer, far nobler, and mo;e dcfirablecherifll-
ing to mans life , unworthily expos'd to fadnefs and mift.ke , which
lieilnl! vindicate. Noc that licence, and levety, and unconfentcd
breach of fiith fliould herein be countenanc't , but that fome conQ:i-
on^We and tender pitty might be had of thofe who have unwarily in
a thing they never pra'5ls'd before , made themfelves the Bondnnen
of a luckLfs and helplefs Matrimony. In which Argument, he whofe-
courage can fervehim to give the firft on-fet, muft look for two feve-

ral

Rcjfor'd to the good of both Sexe^. 5

rat oppofitious ; the one from chem who hav^^ fworn t';emfcives to
long Cuilom , and the lecter of the Text , will not out of the road :
the OLh;:r froixi thofe whofe grofs and vulgar ?pprehen(ions conccii:
but low of marrinonij! purpofcs, and in the Wvrkof Male andFe-
m.dethink they hive all. Neverthelefs , it fhdl be here fought by
due vv.iys to be made nppe.ir, that thofe words of God in the iiiQitu.
tion, promifinga meei; help agiin'l I 'nclinefs , and thofe words cf
Chrilt, That his jck? is cafie^ and his (parden light ^ were not fpoken in
vain, for if the knot of marriage may in no cife bcdi(ro;v'd buc
for adultery, all the burd'ns nnd Services of the Law sre not fo in-
tolerable. This only is defir'd of them who are minded to judge
feirdly of thus m^iintaining, that they would be Hill, and h;-;ir all out,
northiuK itequil to anfwer deliberate reaf-n with (udden he^?: and
noife ■ reraembring this, that many truths now of Reverend elieem
and credit, had their birth and beginning once from lingular and
private thoughts, while the moO: of ?■ tn wereotherwife pnfTert, and
had the fate at firll: to b gentraily exploded and exclr m'd on by
many violent oppofers •, yet 1 may erre perhaps in fooLhirg my k\^,
tiiat this pre fent truth reviv'd, will deferve on all hands to be not fi-
nifterl ' received, in that ic undertakes the cure of an inveterate'
difeafe crept into the beii part of humane fociety ; and to do this
with nofmartingcorrofive, but with a fmooth and plea fir g lefTon,
which receiv'd h rh the vertue to foften and difpel rooted an J knot-
ty forrows : and without inch:^ntment if that be fear'd , or fpell
Bi'djhith regard at once both to ferious pitty, and upright honefty ^
that tends to the redeeming and relloring of none but fuch as are
the obje<3: of compafiion , having in an ill hour hamper'd theinfe'.ves
to the utfer difpatch of ail their mo:t beloved comforis and repofe
for this lives term. But ii we (hall obnin.itely d.fl ke this new over-
tu^'eofunexp 6^edeafe and recovery , what remains bucto deplore
the frowardnefs of our hopelef: condition, '/ hich neither cm indnre
iheeftate we are ''n , nor adxit of remedy ciiher flrrp or fweet.
Sh^.rpwe our felves dillail ; and fwcet, under whofe h:^nd5Weare,
is fcrupl'd and fufpedcd as too 'ufhious. 'n fuch a poHure Chrilt
found the Jem, who were neither won with the aufierity cf %ch4 ths
^aftifl^ and thought it too much licence to follow freely thecharm-
ingpipeof him who founded and proclaimed liber-x^Tind relief to -ll
dillre^es : yet Truth in fome Age or ot er will find her wicncf?,
and (Ball be jufiifiM at Igft by her own children.

.'___... B3 CHAP,

6 TheT^ochine andT^i^ci^live ofT:>\vorcQj

c H ^ P. I.

Ths pcfttioffy Frovd hj the Law of Mofe^. That Latv expounded and
ajfmedto a moral and charitfible ufe^firft Ij Paulus Fagius, mxt yith
othsr addition!.

TO r-€move therefore if it be pofTible , tbi great and fad oppref-
(lon whic h through the llriLi nefs of of a literal inCerpretirghath
invaded and diflurb'd the dearefl and mod pe?ce&b!e ciiate otboof-
hould fociecy, to the over burtliening, if notthe over-wbelmingof
many Chniliars better, worth than to be fo dtfeitedof the Churches
cor.iiderate care , this poHtion (hull be l^id down , firfl p- oving ,
then anfwering what niay be objec; ed either from Scripture or light
of reafon.

Thiit indifp^'fitlon, M^fltnefs^ cr contr^r'tety of mmdyarijingfrem a caufe
in nature ur.chiingeahle^ hindrlr.g^ and ever likdj to hinder the main he
mfits of conjugal /octet y which are f&lace and peace ^ is a greater reafon
of divorce than natural figiditj, efpcciall) f there be no Children^ and
that there be mutual conjent.

This I gather from the Law in Dent. 24. i . IVh^n a man hath tal(n
a wife and married her , and it come to pafs that Jhe fnd mfa'vcur in his
ejes, becaufe he hath fbund fome uncleannefs in her ^ Let him write her A
bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand^^.nd fend her out of his hofife,^c*
This Law, if the words of Chrifl: may be admitted into our belief ,
fball never while the world flands, for him be abrogated. Firft there-
fore Ihere fet down what learned Fagius bath obferv'd on this Law;
The La^ ofGod^Cdth he, permnted divorce for the help of humane weak-
tiefs, ¥or every one that ofn?ceJJityfeperates , cannot live Jingle, That
Chrifl deny d divorce to his own, hinders net ; for what is that to the unrc
generate , W'bo hath not attain d fuch ptrftUion f Let not the remedy be
defpisdwhich was giv'n toweakj'iefs.And^hen Chrifl faith^'^bo marries
the dtvorc't commits adultery^ it is to be underflood if he had arj plot in
the divorce -1 he reft I referve until it be difputed^how the Magiftr.ite is
to do herein. From hence we may plainly difcern a two- fold confidera-
tion in this Law. Firft the end of the Law-giver, and the proper aft
of the Law to command or to allow fomething juft and honeft or in-
diflferent. Secondly, his fufferance from fome accidental refultof e-
vil by this allowance, which the Law cannot remedy. Forifthis
Law have no other end or ad but onely theallowance of a (in, though
never to fo good intention, that Law is no Law but fin muffl'd in the
ffobe of Law, cr Law difguis'd in the loofe garment of fm. Both which

are

ReJIor'd to the gcod of both Sexer. 7

are roo foul Hyj>o':hefcs to fave the PhitnomefJo-rt of our Saviours anfwer
to ch-e Pharifes about this matter. Ani I trail: anon by the help of
an infallible gii'de to perfcdfuch jPr/^;i»/Vj^ tables as ih ill mend the
^Jlronomjo^ our wide expofitors.

The caufe of divorce mention'd in the L<iw istranflited [omeun-
eleamefs but *ia the Hebrew it founds fiakcdnejs of o^^ht cr any real
nnksdnefs : which by all the learned in*erprecers is rcfer'd to the mind
as well as to t'le body. And what greater nakednefs or unficnefs of
mind then that which hinders ever the folace and peaceful fociety
of the mirried couple, and what hinders chat niore than the unfitnefs
anddefeftiv.ncfs of an unconjugil mind. The caufe therefore of
divorce cxpreO: in the pofition cannot but agree wirh that defcrib'd
in the befl and equalled fence of Mofa Law. Which being a matter
of pare char ty , is plainly mora^ and more nowin force then ever:
therefore fure'y lawful. For if under the Law fuch was Gods gra-
cious indulgence , as not to fuffer the ordinance of his goodnefs and
favour , through any error to be fer'd ani ftigmatiz'd upon his fcr-^
vants to their raifery and thraldome ; much lefs will he fuflfer it now
under the covenant of grace , by ab^ogiting his former grant of re-
medy' and relief. But the firO: iaRicucion wil! be objeded to have or-
dain'd mirriage unfeperable. To that a little patience until ihs
firfl: pirc have amply difcourPJ the grave and pious reafons of this
divarfive Law • and then I doubt no: bat with one gentle Piroaking
ro wipe av'ay ten thoufand tears oat of the life of man. Yet thus much
Ifhill nowinfifton, that whatever the inftitution were, ic could not
b^ fo emrmoas, nor fo reSellious agiinft both n?.ture and reafon al
to exalt it felf above the end aniperfon for whom it was inftitu-
ted.

C H A P. I L

The frji reafon of this Law groPind(d on the prime rf^fjff of tnifitYifKcnj ,
That no ccv'nt i^h^' fiever ob-ltges ^gai»JT the mdn et^d ipcth cf it felf
4iriief the farties cov'mKtlng,

F Or all fence and equity reclaims th.n any L?iV7or Ccv'nanr Ix'-w
folen^ne or ftraitjoever , either hetwee n Go.l ard man, or mm
gnd mm, though of Gods jTyning ^ (hnild bind p.^^iinfl n p imcand
principal fcopeof its own inftiEution , and of Loih or ciiher i'arty,

CO-.

8 The "Boihine and T^i^cij^lhie (^/Divorce,

covenanting : ne'ther can ic be of force to ing^ge a blarnelefs creature
to his own perperu^l forrow, mirink'nfor bisexpe^ed fol^ce, with-
out fuOfering Charity to llep in and do a confeil: good work of part-
inf? thofe whom noihtrtgh;>lds tog^f her » but this of Gods /oyning,
fa'dy fopposM sgiind [he csprtTs end of his own Ordinance. And
what this chit'f end wis or creiting Woman to be jcynd with man,
'liis own inflitiuing worJs decl.ire, nnd are infallible toinforin us what
is mirri ge,,and what is no marriage-, unkfs we can think them fee
thereto no purpofe .- h is rot good.^ fjich he, that manjhould he alons,
ImllffJAhe him^nh Ip meet for Iv-^n. Froiii wh ch words (o plain, lefs
cannot be concluded , nor is by any learned Interpreter , than chat:
in Gods indention a meet and h^pp)' converfacion is the chiefcH: and
the nobiefl end of marriage^ for we find here no exprefiion fo re-
ceffarily imp:ying carnal know!eJg,as this p:'event:on of lonelinefs to
the mind and fpir c of man. To this,F^^/«/, Cahln^ Pareus^ Rivetns,
.as wilinglyand large'y ailent as canbewifhc. And indeed it is a
.greater blelllrg from God , more worthy fo excellent a creature as
man is, and a higher end to honour and f^ndifiethe league of marri-
age , when as the folace and fati^fadion of th^ mind is r.garded aad
P'ovided for before the fenGcive pleafing of the body. And with al!
generous perfons married thus it is, that where the mind and perfon
pleafes aptly , there fome unaccomplifhment of the bodies delight
miy be better born with, than when the mind bangs off in anun-
clofing difproportion, though the body be as it ought; for there all
corporal delight wiil foon become unfavoury and contemptible.
And thefolitarinefsof man, which God bad namely and principally
ordered to prevet by marriage, hath no remedy, but lies under a
worfe condition than, the ionelied Tingle life ; for in fingle life the
f.bfence and remotenefs of a htlper might inure himtoexpe;^ his
own comforts out of himfelf, or to fcek with hope j but here the
continual fight of his deluded choughcs without cure , mud needs
be to him, if erpeci:illy h's complexion incline him /o melancholy,
a daily trouble and pajn of lofs, in fome degree, like that which Re-
probates feel. Left therefore fo noble a creature as man fhould be
ihut up incurablv under a worfe evil by an eafie miHake in that Or-
dinance wbich God gave him to remedy a lefs evil, reaping to
jiimfelf forrow while he went to rid away folitarinefs, it cannot a-
void to be concluded , tl-at if the woman be naturally fo of difpo-
^rion, fs will not help to remo^ve , 1 ut help to increafe that fame
€^i i'oibidd'niondir.efs , whic'b will in tirue draw on v^iih it a ge-
ntry

Rcfxord to the gcod of both Sexes. 9

neral difcom^orc and dejedion of mind , not bcfcemirg tkherChri-
{lian profeflion or mora! converfuion , nnproficr.ble abd dangeroiFs
to the Commonvvealch , when the houftiolJ e^ite, out of which
muRfiourifli forth the vigor -^nd fpiric of all public kenterprizes , is
fo ill contented and procur'd at home, and cannot be iupporced;
fuch A marriage can be no mnrriage , whereto the moil: honed end
is w?.nting : and theagrieved p^rfon (hall do more manly, to be ex-
traordinary andfingiilar indaiming the due right whereof he isfru-
flrated , than to piece up his loO: contentment by vifiting the Scew?,
or f^epping to his neighbours bed ; which is the common (liifc in this
misfortune : or c!fe by fuffering his ufeful life to wadeaway , and
be loft under a fecret affiidion of an unconfcionablefize to humane
ftrength. Againft all whiih evils the mercy of this Mofaick Law
was gracioufly exhibited.

CHAP. III.
'The igftorafice and iniquity &f Canon Law , froviding for the right of the
body in marriage , ^wr nothing for the wrongs and grievances of the
mind. An OtjeElion , That the mind Jhonldbe better ioo^t to before
contract i anfrvcred.

pjdw vain therefore is it , and how prepoftcrous in the Canon
Law, to' have made fuch careful provifion againfl the impedi-
ment of carnal performance , and to have had no care about the un-
converfing inability of mind, fodefedive to the pureft and mod
facred end of mnrimony : and that the vefTel of voluptuous enjoy-
ment mud be madegood on him that has taken it upon truft, with-
'ont any caution • when as the mind , from whence mufl flow the
ads of peace and love , a far more precious mixture than the quin-
tefTence of an cxcrenrent , tbe^gh it be found never fo deficient and
unable to perform the bed duty of marringc in a cheerful and agree-
able converfacion, fhall t)e thought good enough , however flitand
melancholious it be, and mui^ ferve, though to the eternal diflur-
bance and langu!(hm;» of him that complains him Yet wifdom
and charity Weighing Gods own inftitution , would think that the
pningoFa ^sd fpirit wedded to lonelinefs, fhould defervetobe freed,
as Well as the inpatience of a fcnfual defire fo providently relieved.
Tis read to us in the Liturgy, that ive mufl not marrj to fa i fie the
pjhlj appetite , like brute beafis , that have no underjlandif^g ; but

C the

lO The 7)o5{rine and T)i ^ciflhie 0/ Divorce,

the Canon fo runs , as if it dreamt of no other matter than fuch an
appetite to be fAtisFi'd •, for if it happen that nature hath (iopt or cx-
tinguiftit the veins of fenfuality, tb-t marriage was annulled. But
though all the faculties of the onderftandingand converfing part afcer
trial appear Co be fo ill and fo averfly met through natures unaltera-
ble working, as that neither peace, nor any fociable contentment
can follow, 'tis ss noching, the contra^ (hall Hand as firm as ever,
betide what will. What is this but fecretly to inQrud U5. that how-
ever many grave reafons are pretended to the married life , yet that
nothing indeed is thought worth reg=;rd therein , but the prefcribd
fatisfadion of an irnnional heat ; which cannot be but ignominious
to the Rate of marriage , didionourab'e to the undervalud foul of
aTian , and even to ChriCtian Dodrine it felf. Wh le it feems mere
mov'd at the difappointingof an impetuous nerve , than at the inge-
nuous grievance of a mind unreafonably yo kt; and to place more
of marriage in the channel ©f concupifcence, than in the pu^'e in-
fluence of peace and love, whereof the fouls lawful contentment is
the one oncly fountain.

But fome are ready to objed , that the difpofition ought fcrioufly
to be confidcr'd before. But let them know again , that for all the
warinefs can be us'd , it may yet befal a difcreet man to be mi[lak*n
in his choice, and we have plenty of examples. The fobrefl: and bed
govern'dmenareleaftpradiz'd in thefe affairs; and who knows not
that the bafhful mutenefs of a virgin may oft-times hii/e all the un-
iivelinefs and natural floth which is really unfit for convcrfation ;
nor is there that freedom of accefs granted or prefumM , as may
fufficeto a perfeft difccrning till too late; and where any difpofi-
tion isfufpcded, what more ufual than the perfwafion of friends^
that acqnaintancc , as it incrcafes , will amend all. And lailly , it is
not Orange though many who have fpent their youth chaftly , are
in fome things not fo quick- fighted , while they haft fo eagerly to
light the nupt al torch ^ nor i? it therefore that for a modeft error
a man fhou! ] forfeit fo great a haj pi efs . and no charitable means to
releafe him. Since they who h :ve liv'd moll Icpfeiy by rcafon of
their bold arcnfloming , prove moR: fuccefsful in their matches., be-
caufe rheir wild nffe^'ons unferjing a: will , have been as fomany
divorces to te :ch them cxpericnie. Wfitn as the fobcr man honou-
ring the 'i.ppe irance of modefty , and hoping well of every f(>cial
vertue wnd^ax the vail, ,maye?fi y chance to meet, if not wirh a
body imp?nttrable, yet often with a mind to all other due convcr-
fation

Rcflord to^ the good of both Sexes. 1 1

fationinacceflible, and to all the more eftimab'e and fuperiour pnr-
pofes of Matrimony ufeltfs and almoft livclcfs: and what a folace,
what a fit help fuch a Conforc would be through the whole life of a
man, is lefs pain to conj dure than to have experience.

CHAP. IV.

Th? fecond Re^fon of thii Z^W , ^hecapife without It ^ marriage as it
hapfns eft is not a remedy of that which it from'fsy as a^'j rational'
creature would expe[l. That marriage , // we pattern from the he-
ginning, as our Savlo-ir bids, was not proptrljthe remedy of lufi^ but
the fulfilling of conjugal Lve and helpfulnefs. ^

ANd that we may further fee what a violent cruel thing it i$
to force the continuing of thofe together, whom God and Na-
ture inth- gentleftend of marriage never joyn'd, divers evils and ex-
tremities that follow lipon fuch a compulfion, fball here be fet in
view.Of evils, the firft and greatefl is, that hereby a mod abiurd and
ra(h imputation is fixt upon God and his holy Laws, of conniving
and difpencing with open and common adultery smong his chofen
people ; a thing which the rankeft Politician would think it fliame
and difworfhip that his Laws (hould countenance : how and in
what manner that comet topafs, I ftiall referve , till the courfcof
method brings on the unfolding of many Scriptures. Next the Law
awdGofpcl are hereby made liable to more than one contradiftion,
which 1 refer aifo thither. Lafily, the fupremedJdate of Charity
is hereby m?.ny ways negleded and violated -, which I fhall forth-
with addrefs to prove. Firft, we know S. Paul faith , It'n better to
marry than to bum. Marriage therefore w^s giv'n as a remedy of that
trouble^ but whu might this birning mean? Certainly not the
meer motion of carnal luft, not the mcer goad of a fcnlitive defire,
God does not principally take c^re for fuch Cattle. What is it then
but that defire which God put into Jd^-m in Paradife before he
knew the /in of Incontincnre ^ that defire which God faw it W3s
not good that m^n fhould be left alone to burn in, the delire and
longing to put off an unkindly folitarincfs by unicing anocler bo-
dy, but not without a fie foul to his in thechearfu! fociety of Wed-
lock : Which if it were fo netdful before the fnll, when m-^.n was
much more perfect in himfcif , how much more is it needful now

C 2 againft

1 2. The T>octnne and T)i[cipline 0/ Divorce,

againd all the forrows and cafu ikies of this hfe to have an intima'te
and/peakingheip, a ready and reviving aHbciue in marriage ; vvh.re*
of whomilTiS, by chmcing on a muce and I'.ir.ijcfs mace , remains
more alone chin before , and in a biirning lefs co becontuin'd then
thic which is flcfhly and more to be confiderM ; as being m re deep-
ly rooted even in thefaulciefs innocence of nature- As for that oihcr-
burning, which is bat as it were the venorae of a lufty and over^
abounding concodion, flrid life and labour, with the abatement of a
fulldiet, may keep thatlowand obedient enough; bat thispure and
more inbr;:d deflre of joyning to it fdf in conjiigil fcllowflaip a fie
converfing foal ('which defire is properly called lovej is ftrongerthan
death J as the fpoufe of ChriO: thought , many waters cannot amnch ity
fieither can the floods drown it. This is that rational burning that mar-
riage is to remedy , not CO be allay'd with fading, nor with any pe-
nance to be fubdu'd ; which ho^v can he sff^vage who by mifhap bath
mec the moO: unmeetell: and unfutable mind? Who hath the power
toftruggle wich an intelligible flime, not in Paradice toberelifted,
become now more ardent by being fail'd of what in reafon it lookc
for; and even then moLlunqucncht, when the importunity of a pro-
vender burniiig is wdl enough appeas'd ; and yet the foul hath ob-
tained nothing of what it jufily defire?. Certainly fuch a one forbid-
den to divorce , is in effed forbidden to marry, and compeil'd to
greater difficulties than in a fing!e life ; for if there be not a more hu-
mane burn ng, which marriage raufl; fatisfie, or elfe may be difforvd^
rhan that of copulation, marriage cannot be honourable Tor the meet
reducing and terminating luft between two : feeing many beadsin
voluntary and chofen couples , live together as un?.dultcroufl/ , and
are as truly married in thacrefpcd:. But all ingenious men will iec
liut the dignity and bjcl!ingof marriage is plac'c rather in the mutu-
al enjoyment of that which the wanting foul needfully fecks , than of
that which the plenteous body would joyFulIy giveaway. Hence it
h chit PLito in his reftiv?,! difcourfe brings in Socrates relating what
be fain'd to have le.irnr from the Propherefs Diotima ^ how Lovt
wnsthe fonne of Pemrj , bcgo: of Plenty in the Garden of Jufher.
Which divinely fores with thit wh:"ch in tffe6i: Mofcs tells us , that
Iv^e, was the fon of Lonelinefs^ begot in para^jcc by that fociable r.nd
helpful apiKude which God implanted between man ar.d woman
toward e;;ch othe-,. The Tme alfo is that burning mentioned b/
S. Pa'Al\ whereof nrrringe ought to be the remedy j the L-lefh haih
o.ber, mutur.l and ealieturbs which arein the power of any tempe-
rate

Reflor'd to the good of both Sexes, ii,

Tatemin. When therefore this original and finlefs Penury or LoKeliyicfs
of che fou! cannoc hy ic fclr down by the fide ot fuch 2i meet and ac-
cepcable union as God ordain'd in mirna^e, at le.^ft in fome propor-
tion, ic cinnoc conceive and bring forth Lovi, bur remains utterly un-
married under a formal Wedlock, and flill burns in the proper mean-
ing of S. T^.^^'. Then enters H^te , not thu H\te that, fins, buc
th.u which onely is natural difTicisfad^ion and the turning afide from
a midakenubjt^ .- [^ that milUke have done injary , it fails not to
difmifs with recoiipence ■ for to retain iLliand not be able to love,
« to he.^pupmore injury. Thence this wif:i and pious Law of dif-
miHion now defended took beginning : He therefore who lacking
of his due in the mod native and humane enl of marriage , thinks
it better to part than to live fadly and injurioudy to that cheerful
covenant; for not to be belov'd, and yet retained is the greited injury
to a geitle fpiri t}he I fay.who therefore feeks to partes one who high-
ly honours the mirriediife and wouU uot ftain ic ; and the reafons
which now move- him to d;vorce , are equal to the beii o^ thofe that
coulcf firil warrant him to marry •, for , as was piainlr fliewn, both
the hate which now diverts him and the lonelinefs which lends him
{lill powerfully to feck a fi: hirlp , hi h not rhe leaflgr iin of a fjn irj
ir, if he be worthy to underRand hi nfelf.

C H A P. V.

T.he third reafon of thif Larr>^lpecapfp ivUhom :'t^ he who has happnd
Kvherc he y^ds nothing hut remcdilefs offences and difcontenis, is in mere
and greater t mptaticns than ever hforc.

THirJ y. Yet it is next to be fear'd, u h'e nninbe riii honftd wth-
out re-^Ton by a deaf rigor, that ivhen be perceives the- juR ex-
pedanceof his mind c efeared , he will begin even agunft Law to ■
c\ft abou: w^ere he may fi d his fatlsfadtion mce comp'eat , unlefs
he be a ihiiig heroically v rtuous , and that ore not the common
lamp of men f r wh^om chiefly the L^ws ought to be made,thoU'gh
notto :heirfins yetto thiir unfinni g weakntfTcs, it being above
their flrengch to endure the lonely eft ate , which while they fhun'd, ,
they are Rfn into. And yet there follows upon this a worfe cenr;pta-
tion ; for if he be fuch cis hath (pent his \outh unbb.mibly andla-d
\}^ his chic'eft earthly comforts in the enfovmentj of a contented
marriage, nor did negled thatfurt enncc which was tobcob:-un'u
therein by conftant prayers , when he (hail find himfelf bound fall lo

an .

14 T^^ T>ociri?ie and Difcip live t^f Divorce,

3n uncomplying difcord of nature, or, as icofc h-ippcns, to an image
of Earih and t ieam, with whom he lookt to be the Copartner o\ a
fvveec and ghdfome foe ety, and fees withal that his bondage is now
insvicibic, chough he be amiolt the ftrongefl Chriftian, he will be
ready to dcfpAir in ver:ue,and mudne sgainll Divire Providence , and
c isdou tleisis the reafonof thofe lapfes and chit melancholly de-
ipair which we f^e in many wedded perfons, though they underfcand
ic not, or pre:end other caufes, becaufc they know no remedy , and
is of extream dinger^ therefore when'humane frailty furchargd, is
at fuch a lofs, chancy oughc to venture much , and ufe bold Phyfitk,
left an over-tol^ faith indanger to fhipwrack,

C H a P. V I.
The fourth Reafon of this L vo^ thdt God regards love Andj>eace in tht
family^ more than a ctrnpnlfive performance of marriage , fpkich is
mare hrok^e bj agritvous continuance y than hj aneedfnl divorce.

Fourthly, Marriage is a Cov'nant , the very being whereof con-
fifts not in a forc'c cohabitation , and counterfeit performance of
duties, but in unf-igned love and peace : And of Matrimonial love,
no doubt but that was chit fiy meant, which by the ancient Sages
was thus parabrd ; That love , if he be not twin-born, yet hath a
brother wondrous like him, ca rd Anteros-^ whom while he feeks
all about, his chance is to meet with many falls and feigning defires
that wander (irgly up and down in her likencfs : By them in their
borrowed garb, Love though not wholly blind, as Poets wrong him^
yet having but one eye, as being born an Archer aiming, and thac
eye not the quickeft in this dark Region here below , which is not
Loves proper Sphere, partly out of the fimplicity and credulity which
is native to him, often deceiv'd, imbraccs and conforms him with
thefe obvious and fubborned Striplings, as if they were his Mothers
own Sons ; for lo he thinks them, while they fubtly keep themfelves
ffioft on his blind fide. But after a whi e, as his manner is, when
foaringup into the high Tower of his Apog^um , above the fha-
dow of the Earth , he darts ou: the diredi rays of his then mod
piercing cy^ fight upon the Impoftures, and trim dTguizes that
•wcreus'd with him, and difcerns that this is not his genuine brother,
asheiiiagin'd, he has no longer the powet to hold fellowdiip wich
fuch a perfonal Mate. For ftrait his arrows loofe their golden
head', and Qied their purple feathers, his filk'n Breads untwine, and
f].ip their knots, and that original and fiery vertue giv'n him by fate,
all on a fudden goes out, and leaves him undeifi'd and dcfpoii d of

ail

Rejlord to the good of both Scxcr. i ^

all his i<>''(:t , til! finding Arteros at lafl , he kindles and repairs the
al.noft faded smmunicion of his Deity by the refiedionof a coequal
snd hmogenealhrc. Thus mine Author fung if tome; and by the
leave of thofe who would be counted the only grave ones, this Ij no
mecr am^torious novel ( though to be wife ard skilful inthefe raar-
ters, men heretofore of g-eatefl name in vertue , have fflecmed ic
one of the highefl: Arks that humane contemplation circ'ing up-
wards, cin make from the globy Sea whereon (he ftaDd5}but this is a
deep and ferious verity , fliewing us that Love in marriage cannot
live nor fubfift unlefs it be mutual ; and where love cannot be, there
can be left of Wedlock nothing , but the empty husk of an ourfide
Matrimony, as undcirghtful and unpleafing to God, as any other kind
of hypocrite So far is his command from tying men to the obfer-
vanceof duic' whi.h there is no help for, but they muft be diffcm-
bi*d If Sel'imons advice be noc over-frolick, Live j'jf^i^y-) faith he,
7f it h the vpife whom thou/ovcfi, all thy days ^ for that is thy portion. How
then, where we find icimpoflible to rejoyce or to love, can we obey
this precept? howmiferably do we defraud our fchesof that com-
fortable portion <. hich God gives us , by driving vainly to glue an
error together which God and nature will no: joyn, adding but more
vexation and violence to that blifsfui fociety byour importunate fu-
perftition, that w llnot hearken ro S. Faul, i Cor 7. who fpeaking
of marriage and divorce, determines plain enough in general , that
God ihtvc\nhath call* ci hs to peace ^ and not to bondage. Yea God
himfelf commands in his Law more than once , and by his Prophet
M^Uchy^ zsC'^lvinandt e bed tranflations read, that he tvho bates
let kirn divorce^ th.u i , he who cannot love. Hence is it that the I^aif-
hirts and Maimmdes , famous among the reft in a Book of his fee
forth by Buxtorfii^, te Is us that Divorce wa: permitted i^y WoUs t9
preferve peace in marriage ^ and quiet in the f^wily. Surely the Jews
bad cheir faving peace about them, as well as we^ yet care was tak'n
that ths wholcfome provifion for houfhold peace (hould alfo be al-
lowed th'-m, snd mufl this be deni'd to Chrifii'^ns? O perverfcnefs !
that the L-.w fhonld be m de more provident of peace-making than
the GofpJl that the Gofpel (hoM be pur to beg a moft necef-
fary help of mercy from the I aw , but mufl not have it; and
that togr nd in the Mill of an undclighted and fervile copulation,
mu'l be the only forc'c work of a Chrillian marrirge oft-times with
fuchayok: fellow ^ from when both love and peace, both nature
and Religion mourns to be fcparatcd. I cannot therefore be fo diffi-
dent,

1 6 The "Dolhinc avd T:i{ciflive c/Divorce,

dent, as not fecurely to conclude, that he who can receive nothing of
the moft importanc helps in marriage, being thereby difinabl'd to re=
turn thatducy which 's his, with a clear and hearty countenincc •, and
thus continues to grieve whom he would not , and is no lefs griev'd,
that mm ought even for loves fake and peace ro move Divorce upon
gooi and liberal conditions to the divorc't. And it is a lefs breach of
Wedlock to part with wife and quiet conftnc betinr.es, then (1111 to foil
and profane that myilery of joy and union with a polluting fidnefs and
perpetual diilemper -^ for it is not the outward conrinuingof marrij?ge
that keeps whole that cov'nsnt , but whatfoever does moft according
to peace and love, whether in marriage or in divorce, heicis that
breaks marriage iedl^ it being fo often written , that k^veomli is
the. fuJfi lif^g of ev. rj Con.njandcmcyit.

CH AP. VH.
The fifth Reafof^^that nothing more hinder s and di^pirhs the ^hole life </
a Chrifiian^ then a matrimony found to be Hncurahl) unfit , and doth
' the fame in (ffcd; that an Idolatrous match.

pifthly, asthofc Prieds of old were not tobe long in for row , or if
they were, they could not rightly execute dieir fundion j fo eve-
ry true Chriftian in a higher order of Pneflhocd b a perfon dedi-
cate to ja>y and peace , offering himfejf a lively facrifice of praife ard
ihankfgiving , and there is no Chriflianducy that is not to be fea-
fon'd and fet off with cheerifhnefs ; which in a thoufand outward and
intermitting croffes may yet be done well, as in this vale of tears, but
in fuch abofomenfflidion as this, crufhing the very foundation of
his inmoll nature, when he (hall be forc't to love againft a poflibili-
ty , andtoufeadiflimulation againft his foul in the perpetual and
■ceafelefs duties of a husband, doubtlefs hii whole duty of ferving God
muft needs be blurr'd and tainted with a fadunpreparednefs and dc-
■jedion of fpiri: , wherein God has no delight. Who kt?> not there-
fore how much more Chri tianity it would be to break by divorce
.that which is more broken by undue and forcible keeping , rather
than ro avtr the altar of the Lord with continual tears ^ fotbat he re^
gardeth notthe offering any more ^ rather than that the whole worihip
,ofa Chriflian mans life ftwuld languifh and fadeaway beneath the
weight of an immeafurablegri^fand difcouragemenr. And becaufe
Tome think the children of a fecond matrimony fucceeding a di-
vorce* would not be a holy itcA^ it hincler'd not the Jews from being
•lb • a^d why fbouM we not think them more holy than the cfiT fprir^g

■ ■"■ 'of

Reftor'd to the good of loth Sexes, 1 7

of a former ill-twifted Wedlock, begott'n only out of a beaftial ne-
cefiity , without any true love or contentment, or joy to their Pa-
rents, fo that in fome fenfviwemiy call them the ChiUren of wrai^
and an^Liifli , which will as I.ttie conduce to their fandifying, as if
they had been Baftards , for nothing more ihan dillurbanceof mind
fufpends us from approaching to God : Such a diRurbance efpecially,
as both afl'aults our faith and trufl in Gods providence, and ends, if
there be not a miracle of venue on cither fi.fe, not only in bitterncfs
and wrath, the Canker of Devotion, but inadefperate and vicious
carelefnefs,when he fees himfelf without fault of his , train'd by a
deceitful bait into a fnsreof roifery , betray'd by an alluring Ordi-
nance, and then made the thrall of heavinefs and difcomfort by an
undivorcing Law of God, as he erronioufly thinks, but of mans ini-
quity, as the* truth is- for that God prefers the free and chearful
worfhipofaChriftian, before the grievous and exad:ed obfervance
of an unhappy marriage, befides that the general maximes of Reli-
gion afTurcus, will be more manifeft by drawing a parallel argument
from the ground of divorcing an Idolatrefs, which was, left he
(hoiild alienate his heart from the true worftiipof God: and what
difference is there whether (lie pervert him to fuperdition by her
inticing Sorcery , or difinable him in the whole fervice of God
through the diilurbance of her unhelpful and unfit fociety-, and fo
drive him at laft , through murmuring and defpair, to thoughts of
Atheifm; neither doth it leffen the caufe of feparating, in that the
one willingly allures him from the Faith , the other perhaps unwil-
lingly drives him •, for in the account oi God it comes all to one,
that the Wife loofes him a fervant •, and therefore by all the united
force of the Decalogue (he ought to be disbanded, unlefs we muft
fet Marriage above God and Charity, which is a Doftrinc of Devils,
no iefs than forbidding to marry.

CHAP. VIM.

That an Idolatrous Heretick^ ought to be divorc*t after a Convemeftt
fpace gtv*» to hope of convtrfon. That place of Corinth. 7. reflord
from a twofold erronious Expofition , and that the common Expcjiters
fiatly covtradEi the Moral Law.

ANd here by the way, to illuftrate the whole queftien of d vorce,
e're this Treatife end, I ihali not be loth to fpend a few lines in
hope to give a full rcfolve of that which is yet fo much controverted,
whether an Idolatrous Heretick ought to be divorcee. To the re-

D folving

I S The 7)ocfnne andT>ip:ipline of Divorce,

folving whereof we muft firft know, thatihe Jews were commanded
to divorce an unbelieving Gentile for two caufes : Firfl , becaufe ali
other Nation?, efpecifllly che Canaamtes^ were to them unclean. Se-
condly, to avoid feducement. That other Nations were to the Jenvs
im;:ure, even tothefeparsting of Marriage, will appear outof £Ar-
od. 34. 16. Dent. J, 1,6. compar'd with Ezra^.z, alfoChap. 10.
10, II. NeJoem, 13. 30. This was the ground of that doubt rais'd
among the CormthUyis by fome of the Circumcifion ; Whether an
unbeliever were not ftill to be counted an unclean thing, fo as that
they ought to divorce from fuch a perfon. This doubt of theirs
S. Paul nmoves by an Evangelical reafon^ having refped to that Vi-
fion of S. Peter, wherein the diftincftionof clean and unclean being
aboliftic, ail living Creatures were fandified to a pureandChridian
ufe, and mankind efpecially, now invited by a general call to the Co-
venant of Grace. Therefore faith S Paul ^ The unbelieving wife is
fmclifi'd hjthe Hmhand-, that is, made pure and lawful to his ufe, fo
that, he need not put her away for fear , left her unbelief (hould de-
file him •, but that if he found her love ftili towards h m , he might
rather hope to win her. The fecond reafon of that divorce was to a-
void feducement, as is proved by comparing thofc placesof the Law,
to that which Ez^ra ard Nehemiah did by Divine Warrant in com-
pelling the Jews to forgo their Wives. And this reafon is moral and
perpetual in the rule of Chriftian Faith without evafion^ therefore
faith the A poftle, 2 Cor 6. Af if- yoke not together mtJo Jnfldels, which
15 interpreted of Marriage in the firfl place. And although the for.
mer legal pollution be now done off, yet there is a fpiritual contagion
in Idolatry as much to be fhun d; and though feducement were not
to be fear*d , yet where there is no hope of converting, there always
ought to be a certain religious averfation and abhorring , which
can noway fort with Marriage; Therefore faith S.Paul^ prhat
felloyvfhlp hath right eottfnefs withnnrgkeoufyiefs f ^hat communion hdth
iig^ht with darl^ffs r what concord hath Chrifl with Be/iaH what fan
h^th he thathelieveth rdth an Infidel f And in the next verfe but one,
he moralizes and makes us liable to that command of Ifaiah;
Wherefore come out from amonji them, and be ye fefarate ^ faith the
Lord , touch not the unclean thing , and I will receive Je. And this
command thus Gofpelliz'd to us, hath the fame force with that
whereon £^f^ grounded the pious neceflity of divorcing. Neither
had be other commiffion for what he did, then fuch a general com-
mand in Def^, as this, nay not fo direft; for he is bid there not to

marry.

Rejlord to iloe good of both Sexes. 1 9

marry, but not bid co divorce, and yet we fee with what a zeal and
confiience he was the Author of a general divorce between the
faithful and unfai.hfLil k^A. TheGofpcl is moreplanly on his fide,
according to three of the Evangelil}? , then the words of the Law-,
for where the cafe of divorce is hindled with fuch a feverity as was
fictefl: to aggravate the fault of unbounded licence-, yet ftiilinthe
fame Chapter, when it comes into queilion afterwards, whether any
civil refpe^, or natural relation which is deareft, may be our plea to
divide, or hinder, or but delay our duty to Religion, we heir ic de-
termined that Father, and ^'other, and Wiie alfo^^is not only to be
hated, but forfak'n, if we mean to inherit the great rewird there pro-
mis'd. Nor will ic fuffice co be put off by faying we mull forfake
then only by not confencing or not complying with thera , for that
were to be done, and roundly too, though being of the fame faith
they (hould but feek, out of a fl.flily tendernefs to weak'n our Chri-
ftian fortitude with worldly perlwafions, or but to unfettle our con«
ftancy with timorous and foftning fuggeftions: as we may read with
what a vehemence 7o^,the patienteftof men, rejeded the defperate
counfelsof his wife ^ and Mpfes ^ the meekeft , being throughly of-
fended with theprophane fpeechesof Zifp'r^^ fent her back to hec
father. But if they fhall perpetually at our Elbow feduce us from the
true worfhip of God, or defile and daily fcandalize our confcience by
their hopelefs continuance in misbelief, then ev'n in the due progrefs
of reafon , and that ever-equal proportion which Juftice proceeds
by, it cannot be imagined that this cited place commands lefs than a
total and final feparation from fuch an Adherent, atleaftthat no
force flioald be ns*d to keep them together; while we remember
that God commanded AbrAbam to fend away his irreligious Wife
and her Son for the offences which they gave in a pious family. And
it may be gueft that David for the like caufe difpos'd of M'tchaet in
fuch a fort, as little differ'd from a difmiffion^ Therefore againft rei-
terated fcandals and feducemcnts which never ceafe, much more can
no other remedy or retirement be found but abfolute departure. For
what kind of Matrimony can that remain to be , what one duty be-
tween fuch can be performed as ic fhould be from the heart, when
their thoughts and fpirits fly afunder as far as Heaven from Hell;
cfpecially i( the time that hope fhould fend forth her expecaed blof-
foms be part in vain. It will eafily be true , that a Father or Brother
may be hated zealoufly, and lov'd civilly or naturally 5 for thofe du-
ties may be pcrform'd at diftance, and do admit of any long abfence :

D2 but

^o The T>otirine and T)i{ci^line of Divorce,

but liow the peace and perpetual cohabitation of marriage can be
kept, how that benevolent and intimate communion of body can be
held with one chat muft be hated with a moft operative hatred , muft
be forfak'n and yet continually dwelt w th and accompanied , he
who can diftinguifh, hath the gift of an aflfedion very pdly divided
andcontriv'd : while others both juft and wife, and i'(?/£7Wo« among
the reft, if they may not hate and forfake as M^Jes er.joyns, and the
Gofpel imports, will find it inipofli olc not to love otherwife then will
fore with the love of God, whole jealoufie brooks no corrival. And
whether is more likely, that Chrifl bidding to forfake wife for religi-
on, meant it by divorce as Mofes meant it > whofe Law grounded oa
moral reafon, was both his office and his elfence to maintain, or .hac
he fhould bring a new morality into religion,not only new^ but con*
crary to an unchangeable command , and dangeroufiy derogating
from our love and worfhip of God. As if when Mofts had bid divorce
abf lutely, and Chrift had faid, hate and forfake, and his ApoQle had
faid, no communication with Chrift and Be/Ui,ya that Chrift after all.
this could be underftood to fay, divorce not , no not for religion, fe-
duce,or feduce not. What mighty and invifible Remora is this in
matrimony able todemur,and to contemneall the divorfive engines
in heaven or earth. Both which may now pafTe away if this be true ,
for more than many joti or tittles, a whole moral Law. is abolifht.
But \^ we dare believe it is not,then in the method of rel gion, and to
fave the honour and dignity of our faitb,we are to retreat and gather
up our felves from the obf<^rvance of an inferior and civil ordinance ,
totheftrid: maintaining of a general and religious command, which
U militn^ThoH p-jd't wake m eovnant lorihthem^ Deut.7 2,3. and that
cov'nant which cannot be lawfully made , we hav€ diredions and ex.
arrp'es lawfully to diftblve. Alfo Chron.2. 19. ShonlAeftthoH love them
thathAte the Lord f No doubdefs : for there is a certain fcale of
duties, there is a certain Hierarchy of upper and lower commands,
which for wantof ftudjing in right order, all the world is in con*
fufion.

Upon thefi principles I anfwer , that a right believer ought to di-
vorce an idolatrous heretick, unlefsupon better hopes ; however that
it is in the believers choice to divorce or not.

The former pirt will be manifeft thus ; firft , an apoftate idolater,
whether husband or wife feducing , was to die by the decree of God,
Deutii 6,9 that marriage therefore God himfelfdisjoyns: for others
born idolaters ^he moral reafon of their dangerous keeping , and the

incona-

Ktfiord to 'the good of both Sexes, ^ •?

incoiimunic:ib!eant3gony that is between Chrift and Belial , will b^
fufficient to inforce the commandment of thofe two infpitM Refor"
mers, E<.ra and Nehemiah , to put an Idolater away as well unde^
the Gofpel.

The latter part, that although there be no feducement fear'd, yet
if there bs no hope giv'n, the divorce is lawful, will appear by this,
that idolatrous marriage is ftill hateful to God, therefore flill it may
be divorc't by the patcrn of chat Warrant that Ezrahiid, and by
the fameeverkfiingreafon : Neither c-in any man give an account
wherefore, if thofs whom God joyns no man can feparate , it
fliould not follow, that whom he joyns not, but hates to joyn , thofc
men ought to feparate : But faith the Lawyer, that which ought not
have been done, once done , avails. I anfwer, this is but a Crot-
chet of the Law, but thar brought againft it isplain Scripture, As
for what ChriH: fp ike concerning divorce, 'tis confefl by all knowing
men, he meant only between them of the fame faith. But what (hall
we f.^y then to S. Paul^ who feems to bid us not divorce an Infidel
willing to {\ay ? We miy fafely fay thus, that wrong colledions have
been hitherto made out of thofe words by modern Divine?, His
drift, 3$ Was heard before, is plain- not to command our (lay in
marriage with an Infidel , that had been a flit renouncing of the
religious and^ moral Law • but to inform the Corinthians that the
body of an unbeliever was not defiling , if his defire to livein Chri-
ftian Wedlock fhewd any likelihood that his heart was opening to
the faith *, and therefore adrifts to forbear dsparturefo long, till
nothing have been negle(^cd to fet forward a converfion : this I fay
he advifes , and that with certain cautiors, not commands If we
can take op fo much credit for him, as to gn him believ'd upon his
own word- for what is this elfe but his counfel in a thing indiffdrenr,
iothere^ (peak, h ^ot the Lord; for though it be true that the Lord
never fpake it, yet from S Pauls mouth we fliould have took it as a
comiiand, had not hirafelf forewirnM us, and difclaim'd, which not-
withftandingif we fliall ftill avouch to be a command, he palpably
denying it, this is not to expound S. Paul, but to ourf:ice him Nei-
ther doth it follow, butthatthe ApoHle may incerpofe his jidg-nent
in a cafe of Chridian liberty , without the giilc of adding to. Gods
word How do we know marriage or fingie li'^'e to be of choice, but by
fuch like words as thefe, /fpeal( this hj permifflon, not of comma^Jd^cnt^
J hdve n^csmmandofthe Lord, yet I give my judgment. Why fh^ll not
the like words have leave to fignifiea freedom in this our prefent

D 3 quedion,

ax The 7)octrine and T>i(c inline o^ Divorce,

^ueQion, though Be^a deny. Neither is the Scripture hereby lefs in-
rplrM, bccaufe S. 'P^^/ canfefles to have ivritc*n therein what he had
not oi commmd \ for we grant chat the Spirit of God [td him thus
to ex pre fs hitufelf to Chnitian prudence , in a raacter which God
thought belt to leave uncommanded. Be:K.a therefore muCt be warily
read, when hetaxei S. Atijlin of B/a/phemy, far holding that S.P^«/
fpake hrre as of a thing indifferent. But if it muQ be a command , I
fhall yet the more evince it to be a command that we (hould herein
be lefcfree.* and that out of the Greek wordus'd in the 12 v. which
inl^ruds us plainly , there mull be a joynt aflenc and good liking on
both iides ; he that will not deprave the Text, muft thus render icj
If a brsther have an unbel'uving roiftt and Jhe jojn in cor>fent to drvell
rfiith h'm (which cannot utter iefs to us than a mutual agreement^
let him not put her away for the meer furraize of Judaical undean-
nefs ; and thereafon follows, for the body of an Infidel is not pollu-
ted, neither to benevolence, nor to procreation. Moreover, this note
of mutual complacency forbids all offer of feduccment , which tea
perfon of zeal cannot be attempted without great offence : if there-
fore feducement be fear'd , this place hinders not divorce. Another
caution was put in this fuppofed command, of not bringing the be-
liever into bondage hex thy ^ whicli doubtlefs might prove extreme, if
Chriftian liberty and confcience were left to the humor of a Pagan
flaying at pleafure to play with, and to vex and wound with a thou-
fand fcandals and burdens, above flrength to bear : If therefore the
conceived hope of gaining a foul come to nothing , then charity
commands that the believer be not wearied out with endlefs waiting
under many grievances fore to his fpirit^bututhat refpeft be had ra-
ther to the prefent fufferingof a true Chriftian , than the uncertain
winning of an obdur'd Heretick. The counfel we have from S.Paul
to hope, cannot countermand the moral and Evangeiick charge we
have from God to fear feducement, to feparate from the misbelie-
ver, the unclean, the obdurate. The Apofile wifheth us to hope, but
does not fend us a Wooll- gathering after vain hope ^ he faith , How
knoivefl thoH^Ofnan, tvhether thou jhdt fave thj wife, that is, till he
try all due means , and fet fome reafonable time to himftlf after
which he may give over wafliing an Ethiope, if he will hear the ad-
vice of the Gofpel , C^/? mt Pearls before Sw'ine , faith Chrift him-
felf. Let him be to thee as a Heathen, Shake the Sft off thj feet. If
this be not enough, hate aisdforfake^ what relation foever. And this

alfo that follows muft appertain to the Precept. L(t ever) mm where^

in

Reflor'd to the good of loth Sexe^. i j

in he is cail'd, thereh abid'e with God, v. 24. that k, fo walking in his
inferiour calling of Marriage, as not by dangerous fabjedion to
that Ordinance , to hinder and difturb the higher calling of his
Chriftianity. La{l,and never too ott remcmbred, whether this be a
command, or an advice, werriuftlook that it be rounderQood , as
not to contradid the leaft point of moral Religion that God hath
formerly commanded, otherwife what do we butfet the moral Law
and the Gofpel at civil war together : and who then (hall be able to
fcrvB thofe two Mafters?

CHAP. IX.
That Adultery is mtthe greatefi breach of MAtrlmonj, that there may
he other viol at tens as greats

NOw whether Idolatry or Adultery be the greateft violation of
Marriage, if any demand , let him thus confidcr, that among
Chriftian Writers touching Matrimony , there be three chief ends
thereof agreed on •, godly fociety, next civil, and thirdly, that of the
Marriage-bed.Of thefe the firft in name to be the higheft and mod ex-
cellent, no baptiz'd man can deny , nor that Idolatry fmices diredly
againft this prime end, nor that fuch as the violated end is, fuch is the
violation j but he who affirms adultery to be the higheft breach > af-
firms thebedtobethe highcftof marriage, which is in truth a grofs
and boriih opinion, how common foever • as far from the counte-
nance of Scripture, as from the light of all clean Philofophy, or civil
Nature. And out of queftion the chearful help that may be in mar-
riage toward fandity of life, is the purefl, and fo the nobleft end of
that contrad : but if the particular of each perfon be confider'd, then
of thofe three ends which God appointed , that to him is greateft
which is moftneceffary ; and marriage is then moft brok'n to him,
when he utterly wants the fruition of that which he mod fought
therein, whether it were religious, civil, or corporal fociety. 'Of
which wants to do him right by divorce only for the laft and mean-
eft, is a perverfe injury , and the pretended reafon of it as frigid as
frigidity it felf, which the C<?^^ and Canon are only fenfible of.
Thus much of this controver/ie. I now return to the former argu-
ment. And having fhewn that difproportion, contrariety, or num--
nefs of mind may juRly be divorc'c, by proving already , that the
prohibition thereof oppofes the exprcfs end of Gods Inftitut'on,
fuffersnot Marriage to facisfie that intelle(Sual and innocent defire-
which God himfelf kindl'd in man to be the Bond of Wedlock, buc
only to remedy a fublunary and beaftial burning, which frugal Dicr, .

" "^ ' wilhou€

^4 7^^ T^oSfrine and T>i[ci^line ofDlvoYce^

without Marriage, would eafify chaft'n. Next, that it drives many
to tranfgrefs the Conjugal Bed, while the foul wanders after that
jfaclsfadion which it had hope to find at home , but Iiatiimift ; or
elfeic fics repining , even to Acheifm, finding ic feif hardly dealt
wirh, but mifdeeming the caufc ro be in Gods Law, which is in mans
uns ighteous ignorance. I haveftiewn alfo how it untyes the inward
knot of Marriage , which is peace and love fif that can be unty 'd
which was never knit) while it aims to keep faft the outward forma-
lity ; how it lets perifh the Chriftian man, to compel impoffibly the
raarried man.

CHAP. X.
'The fix th Reafonof this Law^ that to prehiiit divorce fought fornatU'
ral cafes ^ is againft natnre.

1"He fixth pi ice declares this Prohibition to be as refpedlefs of
humane Nature, as it is of Religion , and t^Jereforeis not of
God. He teaches, that an unlawful marriage may be lawfully di-
vorc't : And thac thofe who having throughly difcern'd each others
difpofirion , which oft-times cannot be till after Matrimony , fliall
cben find a powerful rcludanceand recoil of Nature on either fide,
blading all the content of their mutual fociecy, that fuch perfons are
not lawfu.ly married f to ufe the A poftles words j Saj It hefe things
as a man ^ or faith not the k aw alfo the fame ? for it is r^ritt'n^ Deut.
22. Thou fh alt not fonf the Vimjard With divers feeds , le^ thou defile
both. Thou [halt not plow n>ith an Oxe and an Afs together and the
like, i follow the pattern of S. Paub reafoning ^ Doth God care for
Jiffes and Oxen^ how ill they yoke together, or is it not faid altogether
for our fakes ? foi our fakes no doubt this is written. Yea the Apoftje
liimfelf in the forecited z Corinth, 6. \\, alludes from that place of
Dent, to forbid roifyoking marriage ^ as by the Greek word is evi-
dent, though he inftance but in one example of raifmatching with
an infidel; yet next to that, what can be a fouler incongruity, a
greater violence to the reverend fecret of Nature, than to force a
mixture of minds that cannot unite , and to fow the furrow of mans
Nativity with feed oftwo incoherent and uncombining difpofitions ^
which ad being kindly and voluntary, as it ought, the Apoftle
in the Language be wrote call'd Eunoia^ and the Latines Bene-
volence , intimating the original thereof to be in the underflanding,
and the will- if not, furcly there is nothing which might more
properly be call'd a malevolence rather ; and is the mof^ injurious
and unnatural Tribute thac can be extorted from a perfon fn-

dew'd

Rejfor'd tt) the goodof lo'h Sexes. ij

d^w'd with reafon,to be made pay out the bcfl fubflance of his body,
and of his foul too, rs fomc think, when either for jufl and powerful
caufes he cannot like, or from unequ-ii caiif^s finds not recommence ;
And that there is a hidden efficacie of love and hatred in man as well
as in other kinds, not moral, but natural , which though not alwaycf
in the choice, yet in the fuccefs ofmariage will ever be mofl; predo-
minant, befides daily experience* the auifior of Eccle[\Af}ictis^ whofc
wifdora hath fet him next the Bible, acknowledges, I 3. 16. A man,
faith he, nvilt cleave to hlsHks. But what might be the caufe, whether
each ones allotted Gcmujor proper Star, or whether the fupernatural
influence of Schemes and angular afpeds or this elemental Cr/ifis here
below, whether all thefe joyntly orimgly meeting friendly, or un-
frierdly in either p^rry, I dare not, with the men I am like to ch(h,
appear fo much a Philofopher as to conjedure. The ancient Proverb
in H<7Wfrlef$obQrufe entitles this work of leading each like perfon
to his like, peculiarly to God himfeif : which is plain enough alfo by
hii naming of a meet or like help in the firft efpoufal indituted •, and
that every woman is meet for every man, none fo abfurd as to affirm.
Seeing then there is indeed a two-fold Seminary or ftock in nature ,
from whence are deriv'd the ifTuesof love and hatred, didir.dly flow-
ing through the whole mafs of created th ngs , and that Gods doing
ever is to bring the due likcneflcs and harmonies of his works toge-
ther, except when out of two contraries met to their own deRrudioOj
he moulds a third esiftcnce ^ and that k is error , or fo re evil Angel
which either blindly or malicioufly haih drawn together in two per-
fofls ill imbarkt in wedlock the fleepingdifcords and enmities of na-
ture luH'd on purpofewith fome falfe biir, that they may wake to
f agony and flrife, later then prevention could have wrflir, if from the
^:benc of Juft and honeft intentions beginning what was begun, and fo
continuing, all that is equal, all that is fair and poffible hath been
tri'd, and no accomodation likely to fucceed •, what folly ii it ftill to
fland combiting and battering againfl: invincible caufes and t&cdfs ,
with evil upon evil , till either the beft of our da\ s be lingered our,
or ended with fome fpeeding forrow.The wife Ecc!eftd0ic^f3id\\k%r^-
iher, 37*27. My fort prove thjfottlin thjlifejee what is eviforit^ and
give not that mtoit. Reafon he had to fay fo ; for if the noifomnefsoc
disfigurement of body can foon deflrcy thcfympathy oi mind to wed-
lock duties , much more will the annoyance and trouble of mind
infufe it k\i into all the faculties and afts of the body , to render

2.6 7he T>ocirine and Di^ci^line of Divorce,

them invalid, unkindly , and even unholy a gainft the Fundamental
Lawbook of Nature, which ^c/f/ never thwarts, but reverences .
therefore he commands us to force nothing againft Sympathy orna-
rural order, no not upon the rooft ab/cLt Creatures ■ to (hew tha
fach an indignity cannot be offer'd to man without an impious crime.
And certainly thofe divine meditating words of finding out a mcec
and like help to man, have in them a conHderation of more than the
indertnire likenefs of Womanhood ^ nor are they to be made wafte
paper on, for tiic dulnefsof Canon Divinity; no , nor thofe other
Ailcgorick precepts of Beneficence feccht out of the Clofctof Na-
ture, to reach uj goodnefs and compafiion in not compelling toge-
ther unmuchable Societies, or if they meet through mifchance , by
allconfequence todisjoyn them, as God and Nature fignifies, andle-
dures to us not only by thofe recited Decrees , but ev'n by the firft
and laft of all his vifible worki?-, when by his divorcing command
the World firflrofe out of Chaos, nor can be renew. tl again out of
con'^ufion, but by the feparating of unmeet Conforts.

C H A P. X I.

Ihe fevefith Reafon , That fometimes cantinuance in Marriage way he

evidently the fiortning or indangering of lift to either party, both Law
andDivimtj cone Ipf dingy that Life is to be prefer* d before LMarri'
age^ the intended folace of Life,

QEventhly, The Canon- Law and Divines coiifent, that if either par-
*^ ty be found contriving a^ainfl: anothers life, they may bcftver*d
by divorce ; for a fin againft the life of Marriage , is greater than a
fm againfl: the Bed ^ the one deQroys , the other but defiles. The
fame may be faid touching thofe perfons who being of a penfive na-
ture and courfe of life, have fum*d up all their folace in that free and
lightfome converfation which God and man intends in Marriage^
whereof when they fee themfelvcs deprived by meeting an unfocia-
ble Confort, they oft-itimes refenc one anothers miftake fo deeply ,that
long it is not eVc grief end one of them. When therefore this dan-
ger isforefeen, that the life is in peril by living together, what matter
is it whether helplefs grief' or wilful pradicc be the caufc : This is
certain, that the prefervation of life is more worth than thecompuf-
fory keeping of Marriage •, and it is no lefs than cruelty, to force a
man to remain in that flate as the fokce ot his life^ which he ^nd his

friends

RcJIor'd to\ the good of both Sexes. 27

friendi know will be either the undoing or the diflieartning of his life.
And what is life without the vigour and fpirityal exercifc of life?
how can it be ufcful ei her to private or publickimployment .? (hJl
it therefore be quite dejeded, though never fo valuable, and lef: to
moulder away in heavinefs for the fupenlitious and impofiible ptr-
formance of an i'l-driv n b.irgun? Nothing more inviolable than
vows made to God, yet we read in Nury.hersyih^i if a Wife had made
fuch a vow, the meer will and authority of her Husband might break
it ; how much more mav he break the error of his own bonds with
an unfit and midak'n Wife, to thefavingof his welfare, his life, yea
hi^ faith and verrue from the hazard of over-ftrong tempcations j for
if m^n be Lord of the Sabbath, to the curing of aFevor, can he be
Icfs than Lord of Marriage in f.ch important caufcs as thcfe f

CHAP. xir.

Ty, t'ighh Reafon , Jt is frobable^ or rather certain, that every one U»^o
hafp*r}t to marry , kath not the calling , and therefore upsfi ftfffltnefs
found and confderdj force o'^^ght net to he us'd.

Eighthly, It i« rood fure i hat fome even of thofe who are not plain-
ly dcfeftive in body, yet are deftitute of all other Marriageabl^e
girts, and confequently have not the calling to marry, unlefs nothing
be requifite therao but a meer inftrumental body-, which to affirm,
is to that unanimous Covenant a reproach : yet it is as fure that ma-
ny fuch, not of their own defire, but by the pcrfwafion of friend?, or
not knowing therofclvcs, do often enter into Wedlock j where find-
ing the difference at length between the duties of a married life, and
the gifts of a finglc life, what unfitnefs of mind, what wearifomnefs,
what fcrupks and doubts to an incredible offence and difplcafure sre
like to follow between, may be foon imagined; whom tha« to fhuc
up, and immure, and fhut up together , the one with amifchofen
Mate, the other in a roiflaken calling, is not a courfe that Chriftian
wifdom and tendernefs ought toufe. As for the cuftome that fome
Parents and Guardians have of forcing Marriages, it will be better to
fay nothing of fuch a favage inhumanity, but only thus , that the
Law which gives not all freedom of divorce to any creature indued
with rcafon fo ^ffaffinated, is next in cruelty.

E» CHAPi

2? The T>octrine and T)ijcipine of Divorce

CH f^P. XIII;

The mnth Reafoti , Sccaptfe marriage U not a nteer CArnd coitm^hfa a
humane Socieij, ^^here that cannot re^fondhlj he had , there can he n^
true matrimony. Marriage ccmpar'dwith all other cov'ngnts and vows
Warrantable hrokjnfor the good of man. Marriage the PapiftsSacrdf
ment , and unft marriage the Protefiatfts jdJ.

I^T Inthly , I fuppofe it will be aliow'd us that marriage is a humane
J.\| Society , and that all humane fociery muft proceed from the
mind rather than the body , eh it wouid be but a kind of animal or
beadifh meeting •, if the mind therefore cannot have that due compa-
ny by mariage » that it may reafonably and humanly dtCne, that mari-
age can be no human (ociety , but a certain formality ;, or guilding
over of little better then a brutilh congrcfs , and fo in very wifdome
and purenefs to be diflblv'd.

But mariage is more then human, ?k Covenant ofGod^ Prov. 2. 17*
therforc man cannot diffolve it. I anfwer , if it be more then human ,
fb much the more it argues the chief fociety thereof to be in the foul
rather then in the body, and the greateft breach thereof to be unfitnefi
of mind rather then ddtSt of body : for the body can have leaft afR-
fiity in a cov'nant more then human, fo that the reafon ofdiffolving
holds good the rather. Again , i anfwer , that the Sabbath is a higher
in{litution,a command of the firft Table , for the breach whereof God
hath far more and oftner teftify 'd his anger, then for divorces, which
from Mofes to Malachj be never tookdifpleafure at,nor then neither,
if we mark the Text ; and yet as oft as the good of man is concerned,
he not only permits, but commands to break the Sabbath. What co*
v'nant more contracted with God, and Icfsin mans power, than the
vow which hath once pail his lips ? yet if it be found rafli, ifoffenfive,
if unfruitiu! either to Gods glory or the good of man , our do^rine
forces not error and unwillingnefs irkfomly to keep it , but counfcfs
wifdom and better thoughts boMIy to break it ^ therefore to en/oyn
the indiiTo^uble kcepingof a marriage found unfit againft the good of
man both foul and body, as hath been evidenc't, is to make an Idol df
marriage , to advance it above the worfhip of God and the good of
roan, to make it a tranfccndent command, above both thcfecond and
the firft Table, which is a mod prodig ous Dod^rine.

Ncxt,whereas they cite out of the Proverbs ^ihn it is the Covenant ^f
Cff^, and therefore more than human, that confequcnce ismanifcftly

falfe;

Reflor'd ti the good of both Sexes. ^ 9

falfe : for fo the covnant which Zedechiah made wich the InSdel King
of Babd^ \%c2\Viiih^Ccv€nantofGody Ez«k. 17. 19. which would be
ftrangc to hear counted more than a human covnanr. So every co-
venant between man and man, bound by oath, may be calld the cove-
nant of God, becanfe God therein is attefted. So of marriage he is the
author and thewitnefsj yet hence will not follow any divine aftri(5ti-
on more than what is fubordinate to the glory ot God and the main
good of either p.uiy ',for as the glory of God and their eftecmed fit-
nefs one for the other, was the moiive which led them both at firft co
think without other revelation that God had joyned them together.
So when it (hall be found by their apparent unficnefs, that their con-
tinuing to be man ard wife is sgainft the glory of God and their mu-
tuil happinels, it may affure them that ©od never joyn'd them •, who
hath reveal'd his gracious will not to fet the ordinance above the
man for whom it was ordair/d : not to canonize mariage cither as a
tyranncfsor a goddefs over the enfranchis'd life and foul of man:
for wherein can God delight,wherein be worffiiptj wherein beglorifi'd
by the forcible continuing of an improper and ill-yoking couple ? He
that loved not to fee the difparity oi fcveral cattel at the plow , can-
not be pleafed with any vaft unmeetnefs in marriage. Where can be
the peace and love which muft invite God to fuch a houfe , may it not
be feared that the not divorcing of fuch a belplefs difagrecment , will
bcthedivorcingof God finally from fuch a place? But it is a trial o£
our patience they fay : Igrant it : but which o^foh aiSidions were
fent him with that law , that he might not ufe means to remove any
of them if he could ? And whit if it fubvert our patience and our faith
too f Who (hall anfwer for the perifhing of all thofe fouls perifliingby
ftubborn expoficions of particular and inferior precepts againftthe
general and fupreme rule of charity ? They dare nor affirm that Mar-
riage is either a Sacrament or a mydery , though all thofe facred
things give place to man, and yet they inveft it with fuch an awful
fandicy , and give it fuch adamantine chains to bind with , as if ic
were to be worfhipt like fome Indian deity , when it can confer no
bleffing upon us, but works more and more to our mifery. To fuch
teachers the fayingof S.*P^f^r at the Council ofjerufalem will do well
to be applied : fvhy nmftye Goi to put a joke upon the necl^s of Chrifti-
an men^which neither the Jews^ Gods ancient people, mr we are Me
t^ kar ; and no thing but unwary expounding bath brought upon us.

* CHAP.

JO The "DoEtrine and T>i^ci^line 0/ Divorce,

CHAR XIV.

Conp derations coreernhff Familifmfy J^ntinomiafi'fme^ Afii w/y iV may

he thos^g'jt that f^ch opinions maj proceed from ths undue Ycjtrai^t of
fome juft I'ibtrtj^ then which m greater caufi to Cf.ntsmn dJcfUns,

TO thcfc confideiMcions this alfo m:iy be sddcd as no improbable
conj c^ure, feeing th:iC fort of men who follow Anahaptfm,
F^mi ifm, Antinomiamfm, and Other fanadck dreams if we under-
hand them notamifs j be fuch moft commonly as are by nature ad-
dided CO Religion, of iife alfo not debmchr, and that their opinions
h iving full fwinge, Ao end in facisra(^ion of the fl.Hi, ic may be come
with rcafon into ihe thoughts of a wife man, w. hether all this proceed
not partly, if not chi fly, from the reflrdint of fome lawful liberty
which ought to be giv'n men, and isdeni'd thera..Asby Phyfick we
Hearn In menPiruous bodies, where Natures current hath been flopt,
that the fuff^jcation and upward forcing of fome lower p rt,affeds the
head and inward fenfe with dot3ge and die fancies. And on the other
hand j whether the reft of vulgar men not (o religioufly profeiling,do
not givechemfeives much the more to whoredom and adulteries, lo-
ving the corrupt and venial difeipline of Clergy Courts, but hating to
hearofperfed Reformation-, when as they forefee that then forni-
cation fhallbe aufterely ccnfur'd, adultery punilhc, and marriage the
appointed refuge of nature, though ic hnp to be never fo incongruouj
and difpleafing, muft: yet of force be worn out, when ic can be to no
other purpofe but of ftrife and hatred, a thing odious to God. This
may be worth the fludy of skilful men in Theology^, and the reafon
of things: And laftly, to examine whether fome undue and ill ground-
ed ftridnefs upon the blamelefs nature of man , be not the caufe in
thofe places where already Reformation is, that the difcipljne of the
Church fo often and fo unavoidably brok'n, is brought into conrempt
and derifion. And if it be thus, let thofe who are flill bent to hold
this obftinate liter ality^ fo prepare themfelvef , as to (hare in the ac-
count forallihefe tranfgreffions, when it fliall be demanded at the
iafl day by one who will fcan and fife things with more than a literal
wi fdom of equity > for if thefe rcafons be duly pondcr'd,and that the
Gofpel is more jealous of laying on exceflive burdens than ever the
Law was, left the foul of a Chriftian which is ineftimable , (hould be
©ver-tempted and cafl away, confidcring alfo that many properties of
nature, which the power of Regeneration ic feif never alters , may

Reffor'd mthe good of both Sexes. J i

caufe diflike of conver(ing, even between the moft fandifiM, which
continually grating in harfhtune together, may breed fo me jar and
difcord.andthatendinrancor anditrife, a thing fo oppofite both to
Marriage, and to Cnriftianicy, it would perhips be lefs fcandal to di-
vorce a natural difparity, then to link violently together an unchri-
niandiffencion, committing two infnared fouls inevitably to kindle
one another, not wich ths fire of love , but with a hatred irreconciU-
able , who were they diflf^vered, would be ftraight friends in any o-
ther relation. But if an alphabetical fervility mull be dill urged, ic
may fo fnli out, that the true Church may unwi:tingly ufe as much
cruelty in forbidding to divorce, as the Church of Antichr.ft doth
Wilfully in forbidding to Marry.

THE SECOND BOOK.

CHAP. I.

The Ordinmce of Sabbath and Marriage c&mfurd. 'Bjptrbde no unfre-
(^uem figure in the GofpeU Excefs curd by Contr^rj excefs. Chrifi
neither did^ nor cou/d abrogate the £> aw of Divorce ^ l^ftt only reprieve
the abfffe thereof.

Hitherto the Pofition H^dertaken hath been dedar'd , and
proved by a Law of 6od, that Law proved to be moral,
and unabolifhable, for many reafons equal, honefl, cha-
ritable, juft, annext thereto. Ic follows now, that thofe
places of Scripture which have a feeming to revoke the prudence of
Mofes, or rather that merciful Decree of God, be forthwith ex-
plain'd and reconcil'd. For what are*all thefereafonings worth, will
fome reply, when as the words of Chrift are plainly againftall di-
ve ce, excep: in cafe of forniedtien. To whom he whofe mind were to
anfwer no more but this, except alfo in cafe of charity, might fafely ap.
peal to the more plain words of CbriH: in defence of fo excepting,
Thofi/halt do n9 wanner of work,, f^ith the Commandment of the Sab-
baths Yes, faith Chrift, works of charity. And fhallwe bemorefevere
in parapbrafing the confiderare and tender Gospel, than he was in ex-
pounding the rigid and peremptory Law? What was ever in all ap-
pearance lefj made for man, and more for God alone, than the Sab-
bath ? yet when the good of man come^ into the Scales, we hear that
voice of infinite goodnefif and benignity, chat Sabbath wa^ made for

mayii

3 2- 7&^ jDoffrh/e and 7^i[ci^me of Divorce.

W4«, not man for Sabhath* W^at thing ever was more made for man
alone and Isfs for God than marriage ? And fliall we load it with a
cruel and fencekfs bondage utrerly againft both the good ofman and
she gJory of God ? Let who fo will now iiftenj want neither pall nor
mitre, I ftay neither for ordination or indudion, but in the firm faith
of a knowing Chriftian^ which is the bed and trueft endowaient of
the keyes, I pronounce, the man who (hall bind fo cruelly a good and
gracious ordinance of God^ hach not in that the Spirit oi Chrift. Yet
that every text of Scripture fceming oppofite may be attended with
a due expofition, this other part enfues, and makes account to find no
flender arguiients for this affertion outof thofe very Scriptures,
which are commonly urg'd againft it ;

Firft therefore let us remember as a thing not to be deny'd,that all
;p1acs$ of Scripture wherein juft reafon of doubts arifes from the let-
ter, are to be expounded by confidering upon what occafion every
thing is fet down ; and by comparing oiher Texts. The occafion
which induc'tour Saviour to fpeak of divorce, was either to convince
the extravagance of the Pharifes in that point, or to give a (harp and
vehement anfwer tea tempting qucftion. And in fuch cafes that
VJt are not to repofe all upon the literal terms of fo many word$>
'inany inftances will teach us ; Wherein we may plainly difcover how
Chrift meant not to be tak'n word for word » but like a wife Rhjfi-
cian, adminiftringoneexcefs ag.iinft another, to reduce us to a per-
inifs •, where they were too remifs , he faw it needful to feem moft
fevere : in one place he cenfures an unchafl: look to be adu'tery al-
ready committed : another time he pafles over adual adulcery with
lefs reproof then for an unchaft look; not fo heavily condemniog
fecrct weaknefs, as open malice ; So here he may be jtilily thought
to have giv*n this rigid fentence againft divorce, net to cut off all
remedy from a good man who find himfelf confuming away in a
difconfolate and uninjoyn d matrimony , but to l<iy a bridle upon the
bold abufes of thofe over-weening RMies ^ which he could not more
cfTedually do, then by a counterfway of reftraint curbing their wild
exorbitance almoft into the other extream ^ as when we bow things
the contrary way , to make them come to their natural ftraitnef?:
And that this was the only intention of Chrift is moft evident- if
we attend but to his own words and proteftation made in the fame
Sermon, not many vcrfes before he treats of divorcing, that he came

no:

Rejto/dito the good of both Sexes. j j

not to abrogate from the Law one jot or tittle ^ and denounce ^gainft
them that (hall ib teach. \'^^^6'^'^>( io ^iru/j^^i ii; ji v ^ -nn vii ni.; > c >

But S.Lnks the verfe immediately before- going that of Dlvbrce^
inferts the fame caveat, as if the latter could not be underftood with-
out the former} and as a witnefs to produce againft this our wilful
raiftake of abrogating,which mull: needs confirm us that whatever els
in the poUticalTawofmorefpecial relation to the Jews might ccafe
ro us, yet that of thofe precepts concerning Divorce,not one of them
was repeal'd by the Dodrine of Ghrid, unlefs we have vow'd not to
believe his own cautious and immediate profefTion ; for if chefe our
Saviours words inveigh againft all Divorce,and condemn it as adul-
tery, except it be for adultery, and be not rather underftood againft
the abufe of thofe divorces permitted in the Law,then is that Law oif
Mofesy Deut.24. I. not onely repeaPd ^nd wholly annullM againft
the promife of Chrift and his known profeflion, not to meddle in
matters Judicial , but that which is more ftrange, the very fubftance
andpurpofe of that Law iscontradidedand convinc'tbothof in;u-
ftice and impurity , as having authoriz d and maintaln'd legal adul-
tery by ftatute; >4/^^a alfo canoot fcapetobeguilty of unequal and
"unwife decrees, punifhingonead of fecrct adultery by death , and
permitting a wliole life of open adultery by Law. And albeit Law-
yers write that fomc political edids, though not approvU, arcyet
aliow*d to the fcum of the people and the necefTity' of the times 1
4:hefe excufes havel3utaweakpu!fe: for firft, weread!, nbt that the
fcoundrel people, but the choiceft, the wifeft, theholieftofthat na-
tion have frequently us'd thefe laws, or fuch as thefe in the beft and
hdlieft times. Secondly, be it yielded , that in matters not very bad
or impure, a human lavrgiver may flacken fbmcthing of that which
is ex'adly good, to the difJ)6fition of the people and the times : but
If the perfect, the piire, the righteous law of God , for fo are all his
ftatutes and his judgements , be found to have allow 'd fmoothly
without any certain repreherifion ^ that which Chrift afterward de-
clares to be adukejy , how ctn we free this Law. from the horrible
Inditerrient of being bochurnpure, unjuft, and f^^^^cipu^i ;^^l[^^''gj'*^^;^_

■C H A P. 1 1. '" , - •

JI(m Divorce vpM f&mit ted f<^r hardnefsdf hearty cannot 'be mderfloGd hj

the common expojition. That the Law cannot fermit^ much hfs ena^ a

permijpon of Jin.
1^ Either will it ferve'td fay this ;vas permitted for the hardnefs of
their hearts, in that /enfe , as is ufually explain'd, for the Law

F ' were

54 ^^ Do^rine af^J 7)ifeiflhfe of Divorce.

were then but a corrupt and erroneous School-mafter , teaching us
to da(h againft a vital Maxime of Religion,by doing foul evil in hope
offome uncertain good.

This onely Text not to be matcht again throughout the whole
Scripture , whereby God in his perfect Law fhould feem to have
granted to the hard hearts of his holy people linder his own hand,
a civil immunity and free charter to live and die in a long fuccef-*
five adultery, under a covenant of works, till the Mcfsiah^ and
then that indulgent permiffion tobeftridlydeny'dby a covenant of
grace 5 befides the incoherence of fuch a dodirine, cannot, muft not
be thus interpreted,to the raifing of a Paradox never known till then,
onely hanging by the twin'd thread of one doubtful Scripture , a^
gainft fo many other rules and leading principles of religion, of ju-r
ftice, and purity of life. For what could be granted more either to
the fear, or to the luft of any tyrant or expliticiat, than this author!^
ty of Mofes thus expounded j which opens him a way at will to
damme up juftice , and not onely to admit of any Romijh or Anftrian.
difpenccs, but to enaft a ftatute of that which he dares not feem ta^
approve, ev'n to the legitimate vices , to make fin it felf , the ever
alien and vaffal fin, a free Citizen of the Commou-wealth, pretend-
ing onely thefe or thefe plaufible reafons. And well he might , all'
the while that ^a/a (hall be alledgcdto have done as much without
fhewing any reafon at alK Yet this could not enter into the heart
ofDavidyFfaL^^. 20. how any fuch authority as endeavours tofajhiou
mckedne[s by a larvy Ihould derive it felf from God. And Ifaiah layes
woe ftpon them that decree untight eons deer eesyi 0,1. Now which of thefe
two is the better Law-giver , and which deferves moft a woe, he that
gives out an ediftfinglyunjuft, orhethatconfirmes to generations a
fix t and unmolefted impunity of that which is not onely held to be
un;uft,but alfo unclean, and both in a high degree, not only as they
themfelves affirm, an injurious expullion of one wife, but alio an un^
clean freedom by more than a patent to wed another adulterouP-
fy.^ How can we therefore with fafety thus dangeroufly confine the
free ftmplicity-^f our Saviours meaning to that which meerly a-
tnounts from fb many Letters, when as it can confift neither with
his former and cautionary word, nor with other more pure and ho-
ly principles, nor finally with the fcope of charity, commanding by
his exprefs Commiffion in a higher grain. But all rather of necef-
fity muft be uaderftood as onely againft the abufc of that wife and

ingenu-

hor of fn more than any thing o^eiied b^ the
ifi PfedeflinAtioii^A'''^'^'A,^'^> ^^'^- 1'^^^'^

Rejiord to the good of both Sexes. % j

ingenuous liberty which Mofesgivt ^ and to terrific a roaving con-
fcience from finning under that pretext.

CHAP. III.

That to allow fin by Lavf , is againfl^the nature of Law ^ the end of the law-
giver and the good of the people. Impoffihle therefore in the L^w of God,
That it makes God the author
' ^efuits or Arminians again^

BUt let us yet further examine upon what confideration a Law
of licence could be thus gtv'n to a holy people for the hardnefs
of heart.I fuppofc all will anrwer,that forfomegood end or other.Buc
here the contrary (hall beprov'd. Firft, that many ill efFcds , but no
good end of fuch a fufFerance can be (hewn ; next,that a thing unlaw-
ful can for no good end whatever be either done or allow'd by a pofi-
tivc law.If there were any good end aim'd at,that end was then good,
either to the Law, or to the lawgiver licencing ; or as to the perfon
licenc*t. That it could not be the end of the Law , whether Moral
Or Judicial to licence afinjproveeafilyoutof /^oaw. 5.20. The Law
entered that the offence might abound , that is, that fin might be made
abundantly manifeft to be hainous and difpleafing to God, that fo
his otfer'd grace might be the moreefteem'd. Now if the Law in
ftead of aggravating and terrifying fin, (hall give out licence, it foils
itfelf , and turns recreant from its own end; it foreftalls the pure
grace of Chrift which is through righteoufnefs , with impure in-
dulgences which are through fin. And in ftcad of difcovering fin,
for by the Law is the knowledge t hereof , faith S, P^W,and that by certain
and true light for men towalkinfafely^ it holds out falfe and dazling
fires to ftumblc men : or like thofe miferable flies to run into with
delight , and be burnt : for how many (buls might eafity think that
to be lawful which the Law and Magfftrate allow'd them ? Again
we read, i Tim. i . 5* . The end oftde Commandment is chanty out of a purs
h?artjandof a goodconfcience^and of faith unfained. But never could that,
be charity to allow a people what they could not ufe wixh a pure
heart, but with confcience and faith both deceiv'd , or elfe defpis'd.
The mort particular end of the Judicial Law is fet forth to us clearly
Rom. 1 1 .that God hath giv'n to that Law a Sword not in vAin, but to be
a terror to evilworkjj a revenge to execute wrath upon htm that doth eviL
If this terrible commiHTion (houldbut forbear topuniOi wickednci.%
were it other to be accounted than parnal and unjuft ^ but if it

F 2 bejrin

56 The l^o^rine and TDi^cif line 0/ Divorce.

begin to write indulgence to vulgar uri clean nefs can it do more to
corrupt and iliame theend ofits own being ? Laftly^if the Law albw^^
fin, it enters into a kind of covenant with fin, and ifit do, there is not
a greater fmner in the world than the Law it felf. The Law, to ufe
an allegory fomething different from that in ThiU f^d<zus concerning
Amaleck^^ though haply rnore fignificant, the Law is the //r^^//>f,and
hath this abfolutc charge given it, Deut. 2f. Toklototit the memory of
fin the u4makk^te from under he av*n^ not to forget it. Again, the Law is
the Ifraeiite, and hath this exprefs repeated command to make no cov-
nantwhh {m t he Cananite ^ hut to expel him, left he prove a fnare.
And to fay truths it were too rigid and realbnlefs to proclaim fiich
an enmity between manand rnan, were it not the type of a greater •
enmity between law and fin. Ifpeak ev'n now, as if fin were con-
demned in a perpetual viUen^ie never to be free by law , never to be
mannmitted: but fure fin can have no tenure by law at all^but is rather
an eternal outlaw , and in hoftility with Law paft all attonement :
both ^;4^omrt/ contraries, as much allowing one another, as day and
night together both inone hemifphere.Or ifit be poirible,that finwith
his darknefs may come toeompofition, it cannot be without afoul
cclipfe and twyllght to the law, whofe brightnefs ought to furpafs
the noon. Thus we fee how this unclean permittance defeats the
facred and glorious end both of the Moral and Judicial Law.

As little good can the lawgiver propofe to equity by fuch alayifli'
remifnefs as this : if to remedy hardncfs of heart, F^r<c;/^ and other di-
vines confefs, it more incfeafes by this liberty, then islefsn'd : and
how.isit probable that their hearts were more hard in this that it
fbould l)e yielded to than in any other crime ? Their hearts were fet
upon ufury, and are to this day, no. Nation more; yet that which
was the endammaging only of their eftates , was narrowly forbid 5
this which is thought the extream injury and diihonour of theif
Wives and Daughters,with the defilement alfo of themfelve?,is boun-
teoufly allow'd. Their hearts were as hard under their beft Kings to
offer in high places, though to the true God 5 yet that but a fmall
thing is ftridly forewarned 5 this accounted a high offence againft one
ofthegreateft mora I duties, is calmly jpermitted and eilablilht. How
can it be evaded but that the heavy cenfure of Chrift (hould fall
worfe upon this lawgiver of theirs , than upon all the Scribes and
Pharifes ? For they did but omit Judgment and Mercy to trifle in
Mint and Cummin , yet all according to Law ; but this their Law-
giver, altogether as punctual in fuch niceties , goes marching on to

adulte-

Rejlor'dto the good of both Sexes, 3 7

3rdiiIterie5,through the violence of divorce by Law againft Law. If it
were fiich a curfed ad: of Filat a fubordinate Judge to C^far , over-
fwayed by thofe hard hearts with much ado to futfer one tranfgref-
fion of Law but once , what is it then with lefs ado to publifh a
Law oftranfgreiTion for many ages? Did God for this comedown
and cover the Mount of Sinai with his glory , uttering in thunder
thofe his facred Ordinances out of the bottomlefs treafures of his
wifdomeand infinite purenefs,to patch up an ulcerous androttn com-
mon-wealth with ftrid and ftern injundions , to wafh the skin and
garments for every unclean touch, and fuch cafie permifTion giv'n to
pollu te the foul with adulteries by publick authority , without dif-
grace or queftion ? No it had been better that man had never known
Law or Matrimony , then that fuch foul iniquity fhouldbe faftn'd
upon the Holy One of Ifrael^ the Judge of all the earth, and fuch a
piece of follow as Bdz.eM would not commit,to divide againft him-
felf and pervert his own ends j or if he to compafs more certain mis-
chief, might yield perhaps to fain fbme good deed , yet that God
fhould enadt a licence of certain evil for uncertain good againft His
owii glory and purenefs, is abominable to conceive. And as itisde-
ftrudive to the end of Law , and bl^fphemous to the honour of the
Lawgiver licencing , fo is it as pernicious to the perfoh licen't. If a
private friend admonifii nor, the Scripture faith hs hates his brother
and lets himperijh ; but if he (both him and allow him in his faults,the
Proverbs teach ushefpreads a net for hts neighbour sfeet^andworkethrHiriy
If theMagiftrate or Prince forget to adminifterdue juftice and re-
train not fin ; EU himfelf could fay itm^di thi Lords people to tranf-
grefs. Bat if he countenance them againft law by*his own example ,
what havock if makes both in Religion and \ ertue among the people,
may be gueft by the anger it brought upon Hophni 2in^P hine'^s, notxo
be appeased withfacrifice nor offering for ever. If theL^w'be filent to de^
clare fin, the people muft needs generally go aftray ; for the Apoftle
himfelf faith , he h/td not known lafl bat by the law : and furely fuch a
Nation feems not to be under the illuminating guidance ofGods hm^
but under the horrible doom ratherof fuch as defpife the Gofpel ^hethat
fifilthy It him b; filthy ftHL But where the Law it felf gives a warrant
fof fin,! know not what condition of mifery to imagine mKerable
enough for fuch a people, unlefs that portion ofnhe wicked, or ra-
therof the damned , on whom God threatens in 2 1 Pf^drfi, to- rain
fnares : but that queftionlefs cannot be by any Law, which the Apo-
ftle faith, //^ miniftry ordain 4 af God for our good j and not fomany

F 3 . ways

J 8 The T>o5Mne and DifdfLjie of Divorce

waycs and in fo high a degree to our deftrudion, as we have now bin
graduating. And this is all the good can come to the perfbn liccnc'd
in his hardneft of heart.

I am next to mention that which becaufe it is a ground in divini-
ty, jR(;w. 5. will fave the labour of demonftrating, unlefs her giv n
Axioms be more doubted than in other Arts (although it be no lefs
firm in the precepts of Philofophy) that a thing unlawful can for
no good whatfoever be done , much kfe allow'd by a pofitive hw.
And this is the matter why Interpreters upon thatpaiTage in Hofea
will not confent it to be a true ftory , that the Prophet took a Har-
lot to wife, becaufe God being a pure Spirit, could not command a
thing repugnant to his own nature , no not for Co good an end as to
exhibit more to the life a wlioKbmeandperhaps a converting para^
bleto many anifraclite. Yet that he commanded the allowance of
adulterous and injurious divorces for hardnefs of heart, arealbnob-
icure and in a wrong fenfe, they can very favourily perfwade them-
fclves ; fo tenacious is the leven of an old conceit. But they ihift it,
hepermitted only. Yet filence in the Law is confent, and confent is
aeceflbry 5 why then is not the Law being filent, or not adive againft
a crime, aeceflbry to its own convidion, it felf judging ? For though
we fliould grant, that it approves not, yet it wills 5 and the Lawyers
Maxim is that the willcompeil'd is jet the will. And though Ariftotle in
his Ethicks call this ^ mixt aBion^ yet he concludes it to be voluntary
and inexcufable, if it be evil. How juftly then might human law and
Fhilofophy rife up againft the righteoufnefs ot Mo[es , if this be
true which our vulgar Divinity fathers upon him , yea upon God
:himfelf 5 not iilently and onely negatively to permit, but in his law
to divulge a written and general priviledge to commit andperfift in
unlawfuldivorceswitha high hand , with fecurity and no ill fame.-,
for this is more than permitting and contriving, this is maintaining :
this is warranting, this is proteding, yea this is doing evil, and fuch
an evil as that reprobate lawgiver did , whofe lafting infaniy is in-
grav'n upon him like a furname he who made Ifrael to^n. This is the
loweft pitch contrary tot3od that^yuUick fraud and in juft ice jcaxi
dcfcend. '.^.«j \\.;v,-.,v.. -' .- ti. ' ' 'J^.

If it be affirmM that God as being Lord, may do what^hewilfj
yet we muft know that God hath not two wills., but one will, much
iefs twocontrarv. If he once wilPd adultery (hould be finful^ and
to be punifht by death ., all his omnipotence will not allow him to
-will the allowance that his holieft people might as it were by hi$

own

Refiord to the good of both Sexes. 3 9

oyiTiAnumonie^ or counter-ftatute live unreprov'd in the fame fa<ft
as he himfe If eftecm'd it, according to our common explainers. The
hidden wayes of his providence we adore and fearch notjbut the lav/
is his revealed will,hiscompleat, his evident and certain will; herein
he appears to us as it were in humane (hapejenters into covenant witji
us,(\vears to keep it,binds himfelf like a ;ult lawgiver to his own pre-
fcriptions,givcs himfelf to be underftood by men, judges and is judg'd,
mcafures and is commenfurat to the right reafon ; cannot require
fefs of us in one cantle of his Law than in another , his legal juftice
cannot l)cfo fickle and fo variable , fometimes like a devouring fire^
and by and byconnivent inthe embers, or, if I may fbfay, ofcitant
and fupine. The vigor of his Law could no more remit , than the
hallowed fire upon his altar could be let go out. The Lamps that'
burnt before him might need fnuffing , but the light of his La\ir
never. Of this alfo more beneath , in difcufllng a Solution of i^-
vetHu

The Jefuits and that Seft among us which is namM o^Afminiw^
are wont to charge us of making God the Author of Sin in two da-*
grees efpecially , not to (peak of his permiffion. i. Becaufc we hold
that he hath decreed fome to damnation, and confequently to fin, fay
they : Next, becaufe tho(e means v/hich are of faving knowledge to
others, he makes to them an o<^afion of greater fin. Yet confider-
ing the perfedion wherein man was created, and might haveftood,
no decree neceilitating his free-will , but fiabfequent though not \h
time , yet in order to caufes which were in his own power , they
might, me thinks be perfwaded to abfolve both God and us. When
as the doftrine of VUto and Chryfvffm with their followers the Aca^
dsmics and the Stoics , who knew not what a confummat and moft^
adorned Pandora.vf2iS beftow*d upon Adam^ to be the nurfe and guid
of his arbitrary happinefs and perfeverance , I mean his native inno-
cence and perfection , which might have kept him from bdng our
true Epimethens^ and though they taught of vertue and vice to be
both the gift of divine deftiny^ they could yet give reafbns not inva-
lid , to juftifie the Councils of God and Fate from the infulfity of .
mortal tongues: That mans own will felf corrupted is the adequat
and fufficient caufe of his difobedience befdss Fate j as Homey alfo
wanted not to expreft both in his Iliad and Odijfei, And Manilim the
Poet, although in his fourth book he tells of Ibme created bath to firt
and fHtiiJhment j yet without murmuring and with an induftrious
chccrfuinefs acquits the I>^^>;, They were not ignorant in their hea-
then

^o The doctrine and T>i(ciflifje of' Divorce

then lore, that it is moft God- like to puniih thofe wboof his crea-
tures became his enemies with the greateft punifhmeni: ; and tht^
could attain alfb to think that the greatelt , when God himfelf
throws a man furtheft from him y which then he held they did ,
when he blinded, hardn d, and ftirr'd up his offendorsto fini{h,anci
pile up their defperate work fince they had undertak'n it. To banifh
for ever unto a local Hell, whether in the Air or in the Center, or ih
that uttermoftand bottomlefs gulph o^ Chaos , deeper from Holy
Blifs than the Worlds Diameter multipli'd ; they thought not a^
punifhing (b proper and proportionate for God toinfiid, as to pu-
nifti finne with finne. Thus were the common fort of Gentiles
wont to think, without any wry thoughts call upon divine go-
vernance. And therefore C/c^ro not in \\\sliifcHlan or Compmi an re^
tirements among the learned wits of that age; but ev'n in the Senat
to a mixt auditory (though he were fparing other wile to broach his
Philofophy among Statifts and Lawyers) yet as to this point both'
in: his oration againft Pifo and in that which is about the anfwers of
the footh-(ayer$ againft C/tf^Wj he declares it publickly as no para-
dox to common ears, that God cannot punifh man more, nor make
him more miferable, then ftiil by making him more finful. Thus we
fee how in this controverfie thejufticeof God ftood upright ev-n
among heathen difputers." But if any one be truly, and not preten-
dedly zealous for Gods honour, here I call him forth before Men and
Angelsytou^ his beft and moli ad vifed skill, left God more unavoi^
dably then ever yet, and in the guiltieft manner be made the author
©f fin : if he (hall not onely deliver over and incite his enimies by re-
buke to fin as a puni(hment,but (hall by patent under his own broad
feald allow his friend whom he would fandifie and (ave, whom he
would unite to himfelf and not dif^joyn, whom he would corre<ft
by wholfome chaftning , and rot punifh as he doth the damned by'
kwd finning, if he ffhall allow thefe in his Law the perfed rule of his
own pureft willjand our moft edify 'd confcience, the prepetrating of
an odious and man'fold fin without theleaft contefting. 'tis wondefd.
how there can be in God a fecret and revcard-T^^ill ; and ye t what
wonder, if there be in man two anfwerable caiifes. But here there'
muftbe two revealed wills grappling in a fraternal war with 6nc
another without any reafonable caufe apprehf hded. This cannot be
kfs then to ingraft fin into the fubftance of the law, which law is to
provoke fin by crofiing and forbidding , not by comply Ihg "^^ith it.'
Kay thk-is, which I tremblein utteringj to ihcariratt fin-into'tht^iin-

.puniihing

Re florid to the good of both Sexes, 4 1

punifhing and well plcasM will ofGod. To avoid thefe dreadful con-
lequences that tread upon the heels of thole allowances to fin, will
be a task of far more difficulty then to appeaie thofe minds which
perhaps out of a vigilant and wary confcicnce except againft predefti-
nation. Thus finally we may conclude,that a Law wholly giving li-
cence cannot upon any good confideration be given to a holy people
tor hardncfs of heart in the vulvar ienfe.
. CHAP. IV.
That if divorce be no command ^ no more is marriage. That divorce ccnld
he no diffenjuition if it were lawful. The Solution ofKivetusythat God
dispenc^d ty fo?ne liok^^ovpn way^ought not tofatisfie a Chriflian mind.

OTners think to evade the matter by not granting any Law of di-
vorce,but onely a difpenfation, which is contrary to the w^ords
of Chrifi:,who himfelf calls it a Law^Marl^io.^.or if we fpeak of a
command in the ftriifteft definition, then marriage it felf is no more a
command then divorce,but only a free permiiTion to him who cannot
contain .But as to difpcnfation I affirm^theiameas before of the Law^,
that it can never be given to the allowance of fin,God cannot give it
neither in refpect of himfelf nor in refpe<5l of man : not in refpecf 01
himfelf^beinga m.oO: pure cfTence^the juft avenger of fm*, neither can
he make that ceafe to be a fin^which is in it felf mjuft and impure5as
all divorces they fay were which were not for adultery.Not in refpc A
of man for then it mufl be either to his good or to his evil. Not to his
good;,for how can that be imagin'd any good to a fmncr whomi no-
thing but rebuke and due correction can fave, to hear the determi-
nate oracle of divine Law louder then any reproof difpenfing and
providing for the impunity and convenience of fm *, to make that
doubtfu;], or rather lawful, which the end of the Law was to make
moft evidently hateful. Nor to the evil of man can a difpence be gi-
venjfor nthe Law vpere ordain d^nto //j^,Rom.7. lo.how can the'fame
God publifh difpences againft that Law^which mufl: needs be unto
death? Abf.ird andmonftrousvvould that difpence bcjif any Judge or
Law fhould give it a man to cut his own throat^or to damne himfelf.
Difpence therefore prefuppoles full pardon^orelfe it is not a difpence
but a mofV baneful & bloudy Ihare. And why fhould God enter cove-
nant w^ith a people to be hGly^as the Command is h^iy^cr j^fi^andgood^
Rom.i. 1 2. and yet fufFer an impure and treacherous difpence to mif-
lead and betray them under the vizard of Lav/ to a legitimate pra-
ftifeof uncleannefs. God is no covenant breaker^he cannot do this.

G Rivstm

44 ^^^ Doctrine md Difcifline ^/"Divorce,

Rivetm, a diligent and learned Writer, having well weighed what
hath been written by thofe Founders of Dilpenee, and finding the
fmall agreement among them, would fain work himfelf aloof thefe
rocks and quicklknds, and thinks it bed to conclude that God cer-
tainly did difpence.but by Ibme way to us unknowHjand fo :o leave
it. But to this 1 oppofcjthat a Chriftian by no means cught rcfl hini-
iclfin fuch an ignorance ; whereby fo many abfurdities will ftraitre-
fit^ both agafrift the purity5Jun:ice;,and wifdom of God, the end alfo
both of Law and Gofpel,and the comparifon of them both together.
God indeed in forae ways of his Povidenceishigh andlecret, paft
finding out : but in the delivery and execution of his Law, efpecially
in the managing of a duty fo daily and fo familiar as this is whereof
we reafon,hath plainly enough revealed himfelf,and requires theob-
fervance thereof not otherwife then to the law of nature and of equi»
ty imprinted in us feems correfpondent. And he bath taught us to
love and to extol his laws,not only asthey arehis,but as they arejuft
and good to every wdfe and fober underftanding.lherefore Abraham
even to the face of God himfelf, feemed to doubt of divine ju{lice,if it
fhould fwerve from that irradiation wherewith it had enlightned the
mind of man,and bound it felf to obferve its own rule. Wilt thou de-
flroy the righteom with the wicked / that hefarfvgm thee -^Jh^Ilmt the
Jnage of the earth do right f thereby declaring that God hath created
a righteoufnefs in right it felf,againft which he cannot do. So Vavidy
Tf. lip. The teftimoriies which thou hafl commanded are righteom and
very faithful ^ thy Word is very purest here fore thyfervant loveth it. Not
only then for the Authors fake,but for its own parity. He ufaithfnly
faith S.Pdulyhe cannot deny himfelf : that is,cannot deny his own pro-
mifes,cannot but be true to his own rules. He often pleads with men
the uprightnefs of his w^ays by their own principles. How ihouldwe
imitate him elfe to be ferfetl as he is ferfeB, If at pleafure he can dif-
pence with golden poetick ages of fuch pleafmg licence, as in the fa-
bled reign oiolASatnrn.hxi^ this perhaps before the Law might have
fome covert^ but under fuch an undifpencing covenant ^sMofes made
with them, and not to tell us why and wherefore indulgence cannot
give quiet to the bread of any intelligent man. We muft be refolved
howtiieLaw can be pure and perfpicuous^and yet throw a polluted
skirt over thdc EleHjiman myfteries5that no man can utter what they
mean : worfe in this then the worft obfcenities of heathen fuperfliti"
€-n 3 fox their fiUhiaefs was hid;but the myftick reafon thereof known

to

Refror^d to the good of both Sexes, ^j

to their Sages.But this Jewifh imputed Elthinefs was daily and open,
but the reaibn of it is not known to cur Divines. We know of no de-
fign the Gofpel can have to impolb new righteoulneis upon works,
but to remit the old by faith without works, if we mean juftifying
works : we know no myftery our Saviour could have to Jay new
bonds upon marriage in the covenant of grace which himfcif had
loofned to the fevcrity of Law^So that Rivet 144 may pardon us if wc
cannot be contented with his non-folution to remain in Ibch a peck
of uncertainties and doubtSjfo dangerous and gaftly to the fundamen-
tals of our faith.

CHAP. V.
Wh.tt a Difpojfation is,

THereforc to get fome better fatisfaftion, we mud proceed to in-
quire as dihgently as we can what a Difpenfation i5,w^hich I find
to be either properly fo caird,or improperly .Improperly lb call'd is
rather a particular and exceptive law^ abfolving and difobliging from
a more general command for Ibme juft and reafonablc caufe. As/W/?.
9. they who were unclean,or in a journy^had leave to keep the PafTe-
over in the fecond moneth,but otherwiie ever in the firft. As for that
in Lemtkm of marrying the brothers wife, it was a penal ftatute ra-
ther then a difpence ; and commands nothing injurious or in it idi
unclean only prefers a fpecial reaibn of charity before an inftitutive
decency,and perhaps is meant for life time onely, as is expreft be-
neath in the prohibition of taking tw^o fillers. What other Edict of
Mofes^ carrying but the femblance of a Law in any other kind, may
bear the name of a Difpence,! have not readily to inftance.But a Dif-
penfation moft properly is fome particular accident rarely hapning,
and therefore not fpecified in the Law^,but left to thedecifion of cha-
rity,even under the bondage of Jewilh ritesjmuch more under the li-
berty of the Gofpel. Thus did David enter into the hoiife ofGody and
dideat the Shewhread^he and hl^ followers ^which vccu ceremonially un^
/;zn////.Of fuch difpences as thefe it was that V^erdime the French Di-
vine fo gravely difputedin the Council oiTrent againll Friar Adriarty
who held that the Pope might difpenfe with anything. It is a fond
perfnafion jiniith Verdune^th^it difpenfing is a favour /i ay it is as good di-
flrihHtive]iiftice as what is mofl^and the Friefi fins if he gives it not ^ for
it is nothing elfebnt a right interpretation of Law, Thus far that I can
learn touching this matter wholfomly decreed. Butthat God,who is
the giver of every good and perfe^^gift, Jam.\,ihQ^^\^ give out a

G z rule

44 ^^^ Doctrine and Difci^Une (^f Divorce,

rule and dire^flory to fm by^fhould enaft a Difpenfation as long liv'd
as a Law whereby to live in privileg'd adultery for hardnefs of
heart,andthis obdurate difeafe cannot be conceived how it was the
more amended by this unclean remedy 5is the moft deadly and Scor-
pion-like gift that the enemy of mankind could have given to any mi-
ferable fmncr, and is rather fuch a Difpence as that was which the
Serpent gave to our firft parents. God ^ave Qaails in his wrath, and
Kings in his wrath,yet neither of thefe thingrevil in thcmfelves, but
thathewhofe eyes cannot behold impurity,lhould in the book of his
holy covenant.his moft unpalBonate law, give licence and ilatute for
uncontrolled adultery ^although it go for the receiv'd opinion,! fhall
never diiTuade my foul from fuch a creed/uch an indulgence as the
Hiop of Antichrifb never forg'd a bafer.

^ C H A P, VI.

That the Jew had no more right to this fnppofed Dlfffence then the.
Chrifiian hath^ and rather not fo much,
U T if we muft needs difpence, let us for awhile fo far difpence
with truth, as to grant that fm may be diipenc'd •, yet there will
be copious reafon found to prove that the Jew had no more right to
fuch a fuppos'd indulgence then the Chriftian, whether we look at
the clear knowledge wherein he liv'd, or the ftri»ft performance of
works whereto he was bound. Be-ldes vi^^ons and prophefies they had
the Law oF God, which in the f'fdms and Proverbs is chiefly prais'd
for furenefs and certainty, both eafie and pcrfeft to the enlightning of
the fimple.How could it be fo obfcurethen,or they fo fottiihly blmd
in this plain,moral,an:l houfhold duty? They had the fame precepts
about Marriage,Chri{l added nothing to their clearnefs,for that had
argued them imperfeft -^ he opens not the Law,but removes the Pha-
rifaick mifts rais'd between the law and the peoples eyes : the only
fentence which he adds, What God hath joyn d let no man pit afi^inder^
is asobfcure as any claufe fctchM out oiGenefis^^ccA hath encreas'da
yet undecided controverfie oiclandeffiine marriages. If we examine
overall his Sayings, we fhall find him not fo much interpreting the
Law with his words,as referring his own words to be interpreted by
the Law, and oftner obfcures his mind in fhort, and vehement, and
compaft fcntences, to blind and puzzle them the more who would
not underftand the Law. The Jews therefore were as little to be dif-
penc'd with for lack of moral knowledge as we.

Next,none I think will denyjbut that they were as much bound to

per-

Rejlor'^d to the good of both Stxes, 45

perform the Law as any Chriftian.That fever e and rigorous knife not
Ijparingthe the tender foreskin of any male infant, to carve into his
flefh the mark of that ftri:!: and pure covenant whereinto he cntrcd,
might give us to undeiftand enough againil the fancy of difpenfing.
S 7-'^2///tefl:iiies,that tv^r^circHmtts^dman is adebtortothe whole Uwy
Gal.'^.oxQKccircii.mcifion is in vain ^Ro, 2. 2^, How vain then and how
prepoderous mud it needs be to exarfl a circumcifion of the fic(h
from an intant unto an outward fign of purity.^and to difpcnce an un-
circumcifion in the foul of a grown man to an inward and real im-
purity ? How vain again was that law to impofc tedeous expiations
for every llight fin ot ignorance and error, and to privilege without
penance or difturbance an odious crime whether of ignorance or ob-
ftinacy ? How unjuft alfo inf]i«5ling death and extirpation for the
mark ofcircumftantial purenefs omitted, and proclaiming all honefl
and liberal indem^nity to the a£l of afubftantial impurenefs commit-
ted^making void the covenant that was made againfl: it. Thus if we
confiderthe tenor of the Law, to be circumcis'd and to performi all,
not pardoning fo much as the fcapes o: error and ignorance, and
compare this with the condition of the Gofpel, Believe and be biftt-
z.cd^ I fiippole it cannot be long ere we grant that the Jew was
bound as ftrictly to the performance of every duty as was poiTible,
and therefore could not be difpencM with more then] the Chriilian,
perhaos not fo much.

> CHAP. VIL

7lo,'itth€ G off el is apter to di [pence then the L.'iV^. Fs.YXUsanfaered,

IF then the Law will afford no realbn why the Jew fhould be more
gently dealt with then the Chriil:ian,then lurely theGofpel can af-
ford as little why the Chridian fhould be lefs gently dealt with then
the Jew\The Gofpel indeed exhorts to highefb perfeif^ion, but bears
with weaked infirmity more then the Law^Hence thofe indulgencies,
u4ll cannot receive this faying ^Evcry man hath his -proper gift ^ with ex-
prefs charges not to lay o^yo^s which opir forefathers cokldnot bear.
The nature of man ftiil is as weak, and yet as hard^and that weaknefs
and hardnefs as unfit and as unteachable to be harfhly ufed as ever.
I but, faith Par<zmj there is a greater portion of fpirit poured upon
the Gofpel,which requires from us perfe(f(:er obedience. I anfwer.
This does not prove that the Law there ore might give allowance to
fm more then the Gofpel *, and if it were no Hn^we know it the work
of the Spirit to mortifie onr corrupt defirss and evil concnpi fence , but

not

4? 7T}e Doctrine and Difci^line of Divorce,

not to root up our natural affe<fl:ions and difaffe£lions moving to and
fro even in wifeft men upon juO: and neceiTary realbn, which were
the true ground of that Afi^jC^/t^Diipence, and is the utmoil extent
of our pleading. What is more or lefs perfect we difpute not, but
what is fm or no fin. And in that I ftill affirm the Law required as
perfedl obedience as the Gofpel. Befidesjthat the prime end of the
Gofpel is not fo much to exa£l our obediencejas to reveal grace and
the ilttisfaiTlion of our difobedience. What is now exacted from us^it
is the accufing Law that does it,even yet under the Gofpelj but can-
not be more extreme to us now then to the Jews of old', for the Law
ever was of works^and the Gofpel ever was of grace.

Either then the Law by harmlefs and needful Difpences, w^hich
the Gofpel is now made to deny,muft have anticipated and exceeded
the grace of the Gofpel, or elfe muft be found to have given politick
and iliperficial graces without real pardon,faying in general, Do this
and live, and yet deceiving and danriing under hand withunfound
and hollow permilTions, which is utterly abhorring from the end of
ail Lawjas hath been Viewed. But if thofe indulgences were fafe and
llnicfsout oftendernefs and compaflTionjas indeed they were,and yet
fhali be abrogated by the Gofpel-,then the Law, whofe end is by ri-
gor to magnihe grace,fhall it felf give grace, and pluck a fair plume
iirom the Gofpel, inftead of haftning us thither, alluring us from it.
And whereas the terror of the Law v\'as as a fervant to amplifie and
illuftratethe mildnefs of grace : now the unmildnefs 'o# Evangelick
grace fhall turn fervant to declare the grace and mildnefs of the ri-
gorous Law. The Law w^as har.1i toextoll the graceofthe Gofpel,
and now the Gofpel by a new afFe£led ftritflnefs of her own fliall ex-
tenuate the grace which her felf offers. For by exafting a duty which
the Law difpens'd5ifwe perform it then is grace diminifn'd, by how
much performance advances, unlefs the Apoflle argue wrong : if we
perform it not,and perifh for not performing,then are the conditions
of grace harder then thofe of rigor.If through Faith and Repentance
weeper ifh not, yet grace ftill remains the lefs, by requiring that
which rigor did not require, or at leaft not fo ftriclly. Thus much
therefore to P^r^^^j,that if the Gofpel require perfefter obedience
then the Law as a duty, it exalts the Law and debafes it felf, which
is difhonourable to the work of our Redemption. Seeing therefore
that all the caufes of any allowance that the Jews might have,
remain as well to the Chrifilans ^this is a certain rule, that folong as

the

Rtftor^d to the good of both Sems, 4P

the caufes remain the allowance ought. And having thus at length in-
quired the truth concerning Law and Diipence^their ends,their ufes,
their limits,and in what manner both Jcvo and ChriHian ftand liable
to the one, or capable of the other,we may fafely conclude, that to
affirm thegiving of any Law or Lawlike Dilpenceto fin for hard-
nels of heart, is a doftrine of that extravagance from the fage prin-
ciples of piety, that whofo confiders throughly, cannot but admire
how this hath been digefted all this while.

CHAP. VIIL

I'he true fcnfe how Mofesfeiffered Divorce for hardnefs of heart.

W Hat may we do then to falve this Teeming inconfiftence ? I
mufl not diffemble that I am confident it can be done no
other way then this :

MofesJDeHt.2^.i.c{i3h\\{ht a grave and prudent Law,full of moral
equity, full of due confideration towards Nature, that cannot be re-
rifted,aLaw confenting with the Laws of wifeft men and cLvileft nati-
ons,! hat when a man hath married a wife,if it come to pafs he can-
not love her by reafon of fome difpleafing natural quality or unfit-
nefs in her,let him write her a bill of divorce. The intent of which law
undoubtedly was this, that if any good and peaceable man fhoulddif-
cover fome helplefs difagreement or diflike either of mind or body,.
whereby he could not cheerfully perform the duty of a husband with-
out the perpetual difTembling of offence and difturbance to hisfpirit^
rather then to live uncomfortably and unhappily both to himfelf
and to his wife,rather then to continue undertaking a duty which he
could not pofFibly difcharge,he might difmifs her whom he could not
tolerably and fo notconfcionably retain. And this law the Spirit of
God by the mouth q{ Solomon, Proi/.;o.2i,2 3. teftifies to be a good
and a necelTary Law, by granting it that A hated womm (for ^o the
Hebrew w^ord fign.fies,rather then (?^'/c^,though it come all to one)
that A hatedwoman^whcn JIk is married, is a thing that the earth cannot
bear. What follows then but that the charitable Law mull remedy
what Nature cannot undergo ? Novs^ that many licentious and hard
hearted men took hold of this Law^ to cloke their bad purpofes,is no-
thing flrange to believe. And thefe were they, not for whom Mofec^
made the Law,God forbid,but whofe hardneft of heart taking ill ad-
vantage by this Law,he held it better to fuffer as by accident, where
it could not be detec\ed,rather then good meafhould lofe their juft

and

4^ 71] t Un^Urlne and. Difcifline of Divorce,

and lawful privilege of remedy : Chrifl: therefore having to anfwet
thefc tempting Pharifes^according as his cuftom was, not meaning to
inform their proud ignorance what Mofes did in the true intent of the
law,\vhich they had ill cited, fuppreding the true caufe for which
Mofes gxjcii^^n^ extending it to every flight matter5tels them their
own,what Mofcs was forc'd to fuffer by their abufe of his Law. Which
is yet more plain if we mark that our Saviour in Math. 5. cites not
the Law ofAIofes^ but the Fharifaical tradition falfiy grounded upon
that law. And in thofe other places, Chap, i p.and Mark^ 10. the Pha-
rifes cite the Law,but conceal the wife and human reafon there ex-
preft ^ which our Saviour correds not in tbem^whofe pride deferv'd
not his inflrudionjonly returns them what is proper to them •, Mofes
for the hardhefofyoiir heart ffffer'^dyoHyths.t is,fuch as you top^t away
your );vivcs *, and toyvn he wrote this precept for that cauie,which (joyou)
muft be read v\ith an impreffion^and underftood iimitedly of fjch as
covcr'd ill purpofes under that Law : and it was feafonable that they
0iould hear their own unbounded licence rebuk'd.but not feafonable
for them to hear a good mans requifite liberty explain'd. But us he
hath taught betterifwehave ears to hear. Hehimfelf acknowledg'd
it to be a Lawj/I^f.^r/^i o.and being a law of God,it muft have an un-
doubted Ciidvf charity ^vhich may be Hs'*d with a pure heart ^a good con fci-
erice ^and faith imf eigne d^2iS w^as heard : it cannot allow fmjbutis pur-
pofely to reftft iin^as by the fame chap.to Timothy appears. There we
le^m -di^o that the Law is good if a man life it law f idly. Out of doubt
then there muft be a certain good in this Law which Afc?/^J willingly
aliow'd5and there might be an unlawful ufe made thereof by hypo-
crites*, and that w^as it which Mofes unwillingly fufFer'd forefeeing it
in general.but not able to difcern it in particulars. Chrift therefore
mentions not here what Mofes and the Law intended, for good men
might know that by many other rules : and the fcornful Pharifes
were not fit to be told, until they could imploy that knowledge
they and lels abujively.Only he acquaints them with what Mofes bj
them was put to fuffer.

CHAP. IX.
The words of the JnftitHtion how to he mderftood -^ and of our Savi-
oiirs anfwer to his Difciples,

AND to entertain a little their overweening arrogance as beft be-
fitted ^and to amaze them yet further, becaufe they thought it no
hard matter to fulfil the Law? he draws them up to that unfeparable

inftitu-

jReJlor'^dtothegood'ofboth Stx^s» 4P

inflitution which God ordain'd in the beginning bcfoie the fall,
whe ! man and woman were Doth perfcd,and could have no caule
toi^peiate : juH: as in the fame Chap, he fiances not to contend w.th
the arrogant young man who boaftedhis oblervanceot the whole
Lawjwhcthcr indeed he had kept it or not, but skrues him up higher
to a task of that perfe:lion, which no man is bound to imitate. And
in like manner that patern of the firft inftitution he fet before
the opinionative Phariices to dazle them and not to bind us. For this
is a Iblid rule, that every command j^iven with a reafon, binds our
obedience no otherwife then that reafon hold?. Of this fort was that
command in Eden \ Therefore Jlhilla man cleave to his wife, a7:d they
Phillbeo/ie/lejh : which we i^ce is no abfolute command, but with an
inference, Therefore : the reafon then muft be firft confider'd, that
our obedience be not mifobedience. The firft is, for it is not imglc,
becaufe the wife is to the Hushrndflip ofhtsfle[hj as in the verfe go-
ing before. But this reafon cannot be fufficientof it felf-, for why
then fhould he for his wife leave his father and mother, with whom
he is far moreflejlj offlejhy and bone ofhone^^s being made of their lub-
ftance. And befides it can be but a forty and ignoble fociety of li e,
whofeinleperable injunction depends mecriy upon flefh and boms.
Therefore we muft look higher, fmce Chrift himfelf recalls us to the
beginning, and we fhall find that the primitive reafon of never di-
vorcing wasthatfacred and not vain promife of God to remedy
manslonelinefs by mal^f7^ him a meet htlpfor him^ though not now in
perfe^lion, as at firft ; yet ftill in proportion as things now are. And
this is repeated verf. 20. when all other creatures wxre fitly afTocia-
ted and brought to Ad;im^d.s if the divine power had bin in forae care
and deep thought, becaufe there w^ not yet found a help meet for man.
And can we fo (lightly deprefs the all wife purpofe of a delibera-
ting God, as if his confultation had produc'd no other good for man
but to joyn him with an accidental companion of propagation,
which his fuddcn word had already made for every beaft ? nay a
far lefs good to man it will be found, if (he muft at all adventures
befaftned upon him individually. And therefore even plain fenfe
and equity ,and which is above them both, the all interpreting voice
of Charity her felf cries loud that this primitive reafon, this conful-
ted promife of God fo w^i^f«?f^? help^ is the only caufe that gives
authority to this command ofnot divorcing, to be a command. And
it might be further added, that if the true definition of a wife w^re
ask'd in good earneft, this daufe being <?. meet help w^ould fliew it felf

H fo

50 Thet>oitrme arid Difcip line 6>/Divorce,

To necefTary, andfo elTential in that demonftranve argument, that it-
might be logically concluded : therefore fne who naturally and per-
petually is no meet help can be no wife ;, which clearly takes away
the difficulty of difmiffrngiuch a one. If this be not thought enough
lanUver yet furthcr^that Vl;irriage,unlefs it mean a (it and tolerable
Marriage, is not infeparable neither by nature nor inftitution. Not
by nature,forthcn thofe M',0?W<^DiVorces had been againft nature,
if ieparable and inieparable be contraries, as who doubts they be ?
and what is ag.iind nature is againd huv, if found eft Philofophy ab.ufe
us not : by this reckoning Mofes fhould be mod immofak]^^ that is,
mod illegal, not to fay mod unnatural. Nor is it infeparable by the
tird inditution : for then no fecond inditution in the lame law for fo
many caufes could diffolve it; it being mod unworthy a human
(as T/.^rd>'s judgment is in the fourth book of his Laws) much more a
divine Lawgiver, to write two feveral Decrees upon the fime thing.
But what would PUito have deemed if the one of thefe were good,
the other evil to be done? Ladly.fuppofe it be infeparable by infti-
tution,yet in competition with higher things^as Religionand Charity
in maineft matters, and when the chief end is frudratefor which it.
was ordained, as hath been fhewn, if dill it mud remain infeparable,
it holds a ftrange and lawlefs propriety from all other works of God
under heaven. From thefe many confiderations we mayfafelyga-
ther^thatfo much of the fird inditution as our Saviour mentions, for
he mentions not all,wasbut to quell and put to nonplpu the tempting
Fharifees,and to lay open their ignorance and ih allow underftanding
of the Scriptures. For, iaith he, Have ye not read that he which made
them at the hegr/iningy made them male and female^ andfald^ for this
caiife (lialla man cleave to his wife f which thefe blind ufurpers of
Mjfes Chair could not gainlay : as if this fingle refpecfl of male and
female were fufficient againd a thoufand inconveniences and mif-
chiefs, to clog a rational creature to his endlefs forrow unreliri-
quifhably, under the guileful fuperfcription of his intended folace
and comfort. What if they had thus anfwer'd ? Mader,if thou mean
to make wedlock as infeparable as it was from the beginning, let it
be made aifo a fit fociety , as God meant it, which we fhall foon un-
derdand it ought to be, if thou recite the whole reafon of the Law.
Doubtlefs our Saviour had applauded their jud anfwer. For then
they had expounded his command of Paradife, even as Mofes hmi-
felf expounds it by his Laws of Divorce, that is, with due and wife
regard had to the premifcs andreafons of the firll command,accord-

Rejlor^d to the good of both Sexes, 5 r

ing to which, without unclean and temporizing permilTions, he in^
llru<fl:s us in this imperfefl fcate what we may lafully do about Di-
vorce.

Bur if it bethought that the Difciples oirended at the rigor of
Chriib anfwer, could yet obtain no mitigation of the former fen-.
tenceprono::ncM to thcPharirces,it m.w be fully aniwered,that our
Saviour contmues the lame reply to his Difciplcs, as men leavened
with the fame cudomary licence which the Pharifees maintained^and
dilplealed at the removing of a traditional abufe, whereto they had
fo long not unwillingly been ufed : it was no time then to contend
with .their flow and prejudicial belief,in a thing wherein an ordinary
meafurc of light in Scripture5with fome attention, might afterwards
inform them well enough. And yet ere Chrirthad finillied this argu-
ment, they might have pickM out of his own concluding words an
anlwer more to their minds, and in eitecl the fame with that which
hath been all this while intreating audience : u4ll msri^ faid he, ca^i-
7iot receive this faying ^fave they to whom it is given : he th.it is able to
receive it let him receive it. What faying is tbis which is left to a
mans choice to receive or not receive? what but the married lifer'
was our Saviour fo mild and fo favourable to the weaknefs of a ling!e
man,andisheturn'd onthe fudden fo rigorous and inexorable, to
the diilrefles and extremities of an ill wedded man ? Did he fo gra-
ciouOy give leave to change the better fmglelife for the worfe mar-
ried life ? Did heopenfoto us this hazardous and accidental door
of marriage to fhut upon us like the gate of death, without retract-
ing or returning, without permitting to change the worft, moft in-;
fupportable, moft unrhriftian mifchance of Marriage, for all the-,
mifchiefs and forrowsthat can enfue, being an Ordinance which was>
efpecially given as a Cordial and Exhilarating Cup of folace, the^
betten to bear our other crofTcs and afflictions ? Qye^i^^^^^^s ^^is,
were a hardheartednefs of undivorcing,worfe then that in the Jews,;
which they fay extorted the allowance from Mcfes^ and is utterly-^
dififonant from all the Do£lrine of our Savioar. After thele confi-
derations therefore to take a Law out or" Paradifo gi^^en in time off
original perfeftion,and to take it barely withoutthofejtjil and equal-
inferences and reafons which mainly eftablifh it, nor lb nmHi as ad-
mitting thofe needful and fafe allowances wnQr:c\\nth.Mafeshm^t'ii
interprets it to the fain condition of man, argues nothing in us bur
rafhnefs and contempt of thofe means that God left us in his pure
arfd chafte Law, withoutwbich it will-nofbe pofiible \ox us to per-

H .2 form

5 2 Tlje Doctrine andDifcipline e?/Divorce,

form the ftri£^ impofition of this command : or if we ftrive beyond
our ftrength, we fhall ftrive to obey it otherwife then God com-
mands it. And lamented Experience daily teaches the bitter and'^
vain fruits oi t- i^ our prelumption , forcing men in a-tning wherein
W'C are not able to judge either of their ftrength or of th':ir fuffer-
ance. Whom neither one vice or other by natural addidlion, but on-
ly marriage ruinSjwhich doubtlefs is not the fault of that Ordinance,
for God gave it as a bleffing^not always of raansaiiiichufing •, it be-
ing an error above wifdom to prevent,as examples of wifeft men fo
miftaken manifeft : it is the fault there ore ofaperverfe Opinion
that will have it continued in defpight of Nature and Reafon, when
indeed it was never fo truly joynd. All thofe Expofitors upon the
^k\\ oi M^tthtVQ confefs the h^iV^ o^ Mofcs to be the Law of the
Lord, wherein no addition or diminution hath place -^ yet coming to
the point of Divorce, as if they fear'd not to be caU'd leaft in the
Kingdom of Heaven, any flight evafion will content them to recon-
cile thofe contradi^ions w^hich they make between Ghrift and /1/<?-
fes^ between Chrift and Ghrift.

C H A P. X,

'the vain fhift of thofe who make the Law of Divorce te be.of^ely
the fremifes of a fuccecdi7ig Law,

SOme will have it no Law, but the granted premifes of another;
Law following, contrary to the words'ofChrift,A/^r^lo. 5. and
all other Tranflations of graveft Authority, who render it inform of
a Law, agreeable to M-d.i. 16. as it is moft ancient and modernly
expounded. BefideSjthe bill of divorce, and the particular occafion
therein mention'd, declares it to be orderly and legal. And what
avails this to make the matter more righteous, if fuch an adulterous
condition fhall be mention'd to build a Law upon without either pu-
nifhment or fo much as forbidding : they pretend it is implicitly re-
proved in thefe words, Df/^^.24.4. after ^e is defVd^ but who fees
not that tr is defilement is onely in refpe^: of returning to her for-
mer Husband after an intermixt Marriage ; elfe why was not the^
defiling condition firft foTbidden, which ^vould have fa ved the labour
of this after Law : nor is it feemly or pioufly attributed to the Ju-
ftice of God and his known hatred of fin, that fiich a heinous fault as
this through all the Law fhould be onely whtppM with an implicite
and oblique touch5(which yetis falfly fuppos'd) and that .his peculiar

people

Rejlor^d to the good of both Sexes. 5^3

people (hould be let wallow in adulterous Marriages almoft two
thouland years for wantof adired Law to prohibit them : 'tis ra-
ther to be confidently aiTumed that this was granted to apparent ne-
cefTities, as being of unqueftionable right and realon in the Law of
Nature, in that it (till pafifes without inhibition, even when greateft
caufe is given to us to expe:t itlhould be dire^lly forbidden.

CHAP. XI.

l^'he other JJjift of faying Divorce w^u vermittcd by Laxp-, hnt not-
approv''d. More of the InjlltHtioru

Bll T it was not approv'd.So niuch the worfe that it was allow'd,
as if fin had overmafter'd the word of God,to conform her fted-
dy and ftrait rule to fms crookednefs, which is impofTiblc. Befides,
what needed a pofltive grant of that which was not approv'd ? it re
ftrain'd no liberty to him that could but ulc a little fraud,it had been
better filenc'd, unlefs it were approv'd in lome cafe or other. But
ftillitwas not approv'd. Miierable Excufers ! He who doth evil
that good may come thereby, approves not what he doth -> and yet
the grand rule forbids him, and counts his damnation juft if he do it.
The Soiccrc(s Midea did not approve her own evil doings, yet
look'd not to beexcus'd for that : and it is the conftant Opmion of
Plato^s 1 rotagor^j'^nd other of hisDialogues agreeing with that Pro-
verbial Sentence among the Greeks y that No man is wickid willingly.
Which alfo the Peripateticks do rather diftinguifn then deny. What
great thank then if any man reputed wife and condant, will neither.
do nor permit others under his charge to do that which he approves
not, efpecially in matter of l^n. But for a Judge, but for a M^gi-
ftrate and Shepherd of his people, to lurrender up his approbation
againft Law and his own Judgment to the obftinacy of his heart,
what more un- Judge- like, more un Magiftrate-like, and in War
more un-Commander-Iike ? Twice in a fhoi t time it was the undo-
ing of the Roman State, firft when Pompey^ next when Mar cm Br at via ^
had not magnanimity enough but to make fa poor a refignation of
what they approv'd, to what the boifterous Tribunes and Souldiers
bawl'd for. Twice it was the faving of two the greateft Common-
wealths in the world, oi Athens by Themtflocles^i the Sea fight
of Sal amis '^ of Rome by Fa biptsM'ixi mm in the /'^////Vi^ War, for
that thefe two matchlefs Generals had the fortitude at home a-
gainft the ralhnefs- and the clamours of their own Captains and
Confederates, towithfland the doing or permitting of what, they

H i fo^ld

5 4 -7"^^ Doctrine a^dDifcipline of Dlvorctj

could not approve in their duty of their great command. Thus far
of civil prudence. But when we fpeak of (in, let us look again
upon tlie old reverend £//' '^ who in his heavy punifhment found no
c'ifFerence between the doing and permitting of what he did not ap-
prove. If hardnefs of heart in the people may be an excufe , why
then is P/7^f branded through all memory f He approv'd not what
he did' he openly proteded, he wafh'd his hands and laboured not a
little, ere he would yield to the hard hearts of a w^hole people, both
Princes and Plebeans importuning and tumulting even to the fear of
a revolt. Yet is there any will undertake his caufe s" If therefore Ft-
//;f for fuffjring but one ad of cruelty againft law, though with much
unwiiiingnefs teftify'd, at the violent demand of a whole Nation ,
iliall lland fp black upon record to all pofterity ? Alas for Mofes I
-what -aiall w^e lay for him, while we are taught to believe he Ibffer'd
not one aotonclyboth of cruelty and uncleannefs in one divorce,
but made it a plain and lading lav,' againft law, whereby ten thoufand
ac^s accounted both cruel and unclean, might be daily committed,..
and this without the leaft fuit or petition of the people that we can;
read of.

And can we conceive without vile thoughts, that the Majefly and
Holinefsof God could endure fo many ages to gratifie a ilubborn
people in the pradice of a foul polluting (In, and could heexpevH: they
iliould abilain, he not fignifying his mind in a plain command, at
luch time elpecially when he was framing their laws and them to all
i3oiTible perfe^lion ? But they were to look back to the firft inftitu-
tion, nay rather why was not that individual inftitution brought out
of Paradife, as was that of the Sabbath, and repeated in the body of
the Law, that men might have underRood it to be a command .^ for
that any fentcnce that bears the refemblance of a precept, fet there,
fo out of place in another world at fuch a diftance from the whole
Law, andruot once mention'd there, fhould be an obliging command
to us, is very difputable, and perhaps it might be deny'd to be^
command without further difpute : however, it commands not ablo-
lutely, as hath bin clear'd, but onely with reference to that prece-
dent promife of G.od, which is the very ground of his inftitution^
if that appear not infome tolerable fort, how can we affirm fuch a'
matrimony to be the fame which God inftituted ? In fuch an accident)
it will befibehooye our fobeniefs to follow rather w^hat moral Simi
prefcibes equal to- our ftrength , then fondly to think w^ithin our
(Irength all that loft Paradife relates.

; . - - CHAPi

RefioidtothegoodofhothStxts, - 55

CHAP. XII.

The third jh/ft of them whoefteem it a mecr Judicial Laiv.
Proved again to be a Liw of moral equity.

ANother while it fhall fufiice them,that it was not a Moral but a
Judicial Law and lo was abrogated. Nay rather not abroga-
ted becauie Judicial ^ which Law the Miniftry of Chrift came not to
deal with. And who put it in mans power to exempt, where Ghrifi:
Ipeaks in general of not abrogating the leafijot or tittle^ and in ipecial
not that of Divorce,becaule it follows among thole Laws which he
premis'd exprefly not to abrogate^but to vindicatefrom abufivetra-
ditions : w^ich is raoft evidently to be lecn in the 16 o'i Liiki^ where
this caution of not abrogating is inferted immediately ,and not other-
wife then pur pofely, when no other point of Law is touch'd but that
of Divorce. And if we mark the uveife of 4/^^. 5. he there cites
not the Law ofMofes, but the licentious Glofs which traducM the
Law '^ that therefore which he cited, that he abrogated^and not only
abrogated but dilTallowed and flatly condemned, which could not be
the Law of Afofs^fon that had been foully to the rebuke of his great
Servant.To abrogate a Law made with Gods allowance,had been to
tell us onely that fuch a Law was now to ceafe : but to refute it with
an.ignominious note of civillizing adultery, cafts thereprooF, which
was meant onely to the Phai ifees,even upon him that made the Law.
But yet ifthat be Judicial which belongs to a Civil Court, this Law
iskfs Judicial then nine of the ten Commandments : for Antiquaries
afiirm^that Divorces proceeded among the Jews without knowledge
of the Magifl:rate,onely with Hands and Seals under the teftimony of
fome Rabbi's to be then prelent. Perkins m a Trcatifs ofConfcterice
grants,that what in the Judicial Law is of conimon equity, binds al-
io the Chriftian : and how to judge of this prelcribcs two ways *, If
wife Nations have enacfed the like Decree: Or if it maintain the
good or Family, Churchjor Commonwealth. This therefor e-is a pure
motdAcscoricmicalh?.\N, toohadily imputed of tolerating nn ; bcin,^
rather fo clear in nature and realbn, that it vvas \dt to a mans own
arbitrcment to be determined between God and his own confcience ;
not only among the Jews, but in every wife Nation : the reftraint
whereof, who is not too thick (ighted, may fee how hurtful and di-
llradive it is to the Houfe,the Church,and Commonvvcalth. And that
power which Chrift never took from the Mailer of a Family, but re-
(lifted onely to a right and wary ufe at home y that power the undi-

fccrning

5 6 The Do5trine and Dlfcipline (^/Divorce,

Icerning Canonift hath improperly ufurpt into his Court leetjand be-
icribblM with a thouiimd trifling impcrtincncies,vv'hich yet have filPd
the life of man with fcrioiis trouble and calamity. Yet grant it were
of old a judicial Law, it need not be the lefs moral for that, being
converfant as it is about vertucor vice. And our Saviour difputes nor
here the judicature, for that was not his office, but the mortality of
Divorce, whether it be Adultery orno -^ iftherefore he touch the
Law ofMofcs at all,he touches the moral part thereof, -which is ah-
iurd to imagine,that the Covenant ofGrace fhould reform the exa6l
and perfeft Law ofWorks^ eternal and immutable *, or if he touch
not the Law at all,then is not the allowance thereof difaliow^'d to us.

CHAP. xin.

The ridiculoyjOpwion that Divorce was permitted from the ckfiom in

A~gypt. Thaty[o{Q^ gave not this Law unwillwgly. Perkins

cof.fcfcs this L^w was not abrogated.

OThcrs arefo ridiculous as to allege that this licenfe of divorcing
was given them bccaufe they were fo accuftom'd in ^y£gypt.
As if an ill cuftomwere to be kept to all poflerity ; for theDilpen-
fation is both univerfal and of time unlimited, and fo indeed no Dif-
penfationatalj ^ for the over dated Difpeniation of a thing unlaw-
.ful ferves for nothing but to increafe hardnelsof heart,& makes men
but wax more incorrigible, which were a great reproach to befaid
of any Law or Allowance that God fhould give us. In thefe Opini-
ons it would be more<RcIigion to advile well, left \nc make our
felves jufter then God, by cenfuringrafhly that for fm w^hich his u.n-
Ipotted Law without rebukes allows, and his people without being
confciou6 ofdifpleafing him have us'd. And if we can think fo of ^<?-
fesj as that the Jew iJJ} obftinacy could compel him to write fuch im-
pure permiflions againft the Word of God and his own judgment,
doubtlefs it was his part to have protefled publickly what ftraits he
was driven to, and to have declar'd his confcience when he gave any
Law againft his mind ^ for the Law is the Touchftone of fin and of
confcience,and muft not be ifitermix'd with corrupt Indulgences ; for
then it lofes the greatcft praife it has of being certain and infalli-
ble, not leading into error, as the yews were led by this Connivence
of/I/^Tf/, ifitwerea Connivence. But ftill they fly back to the
primitive Inftitution, and would have us re-enter Paradife againft
the Sword that guards it. Whom I again thus reply to, that the place
in Ger/e/is contains the defcription of a fit and perfe^ Marriage,with

an

ReJlor'*d to the good of both Sexes, y J

an interdict of ever divorcing fiich a union', but where nature isdil-
cover'd to have never joyn'd indeed,but vehemently feeks to part^it
cannot be there conceived that God forbids it, nay he commands it
both in the Law and in the Prophet Malachy^which is to be our rule.
And Perkins upon this Chapter o^ Matthew deals plainly, that our
Saviour here confutes not Mofes Law, but the falfe GloiTes that de-
prav'd the Law ;, which being true, P^^i^^^muii: needs grant, that
Ibmething then is left to that Law which Chrift found no fault with ^
and what can that be but the conlcionable ufc of fuch liberty as the
plain words import ? So that by his own inference Chrift did not ab-
lolutely intend to reftrain all Divorces to the only caufe of Adultery .
This therefore is the true fcope of our Saviours will, that he who
looks upon theLaw concemingDivorce,{hould alfo look back upon
the Inil:itui:ion,that he may endeavour what is perfecleft: and he that
looks upon the Inftitution fhaU not refufe as finful and unlawful
thofe allowances which God affords him in his following Law,left he
make himfelf purer then his Maker ^and prefuming above ftrength flip
into temptations irrecoverably.f or this is w^onderful,that in ail thofe
Decrees concerning Marriage God fhould never once mention the
prime Inftitution to difluade them from divorcing ^and that he fhould
forbid fraailer fins as oppofite to the hardnefs of their hearts^and ht
this adulterous matter of Divorce pafs ever unreproved.

This is alfo to be marvelled, that feeing Chrift did not condemn
whatever it was that ^^^/^jfufferedjand that thereupon the Chriftian
Magiftrate permits lllury and open Stews,and here with us Adulte-
ry to befo flightly puni(hed,which was publifhed by death to thefe
hard hearted JeVvs^ why v/e fhould ftrain thus at the matter of Di-
vorce,which may ftand fo much wath charity to permit^and make no
fcruple to allow Ufury efteem'd to be fo much againft charity. But
this it is to embroyi our felves againft the righteous and all-wife
Judgments and Statutes of God *, which are not variable and contra-
rious, as we w^ould make them, one while permitting and another
while forbiddingjbut are moft conftant and moft harmonious each to
other.For how can the uncorrupt and majeftick Law of God^bearing
in her hand the wages of life and death, harbour fuch a repugnance
within her felf,as to require an unexempted and impartial obedience
to all her Decrees, either from us or from our Mediator^and yet de-
bafe her felfto faulter fo many ages with circumcis'd Adulteries by
unclean andflubbering permifTions.

I CHAP.

5 § The Docirine mA Difci^line of Divorce >

CHAP. XIV.

'That Beza'j Opinion of regelating fin by u4poflolick^L.m cannot

be foHnd,

YE T Bez.as Opinion is, that a politick Law (but what politick
Law I know not, unlefs one ofA^atchiavePs) may regulate fin •,
may hear indeed, I grant with impcrfcclion for a time, asthofeCa-
nons of the Apoilles did in Ceremonial things : but as for fin, the ef-
lence of it cannot confifl: with rule*, and if the Law fail to regulate
fin and not to take it utterly away, itneccfTariiy confirms and efta-
blifhes Cm. To make a regularity of fin by Law, either the Law mull
ftreighten fin into no fin, or fin mud crook the Law into no Law.
The Judicial Law can ferve to no other end then to be the Proteclor
and Champion of Religion and honell Civility, as is fet down plainly
Kom.i I. and isbutthearmof MoralLaw,whichcan no more befe-
parate from jufl;ice then juftice from vcrtue.T^'heir office alfo in a dif-
ferent manner fteers the lame courfe ; the one teaches what is good
by precept, the other unteaches what is bad by punifliment. But if,
we give way to politick Difpenfations of lewd uncleannefs, the firil
good confequence of fuch a relax will be the juftifying of Papal Stews,
joyn'dwith a toleration of epidemick whoredom. Juftice muft revolt
from the end of her authority ,and become the patron of that where-
of flie was created the puniftier.The example of Ufury, which is com-
monly alleged, makes againft the allegation which it brings, as I
touch'd before. Befides that Ufury, fo much as is permitted by the
Magiftrate, and demanded with common equity, is neither againffc
the Word of God, nor the rule of charity, as hath been often dif-
cufs'd by men of eminent learning and judgment. There muft be
therefore fome other example found outtofhew us wherein civil
policy may with warrant from God fettle wickednefs by Law, and
make that lawful which is lawlefs. Although I doubt not but upon
deeper confideration, that which is true in Phyfick will be found as
true in Policy, that as of badPulfes thofethat beat moftin order are
much worfe then thofe that keep the moft inordinate circuit, fo of
popular vices thofethat may be committed legally ,will be more per-
nicious then thofe that are left to their own courfe at peril ,not under
a ftinted privilege to fin orderly and regularly, which is an implicite
contradi6lion,but under due and fearlefs execution of punifhment.

The political Law,fince it cannot regulate vice,is to reftrain it by
ufing all means to root it out.But if it fuffer the weed to grow up to

any

Rejlor'^d to the good of both Sexes. 59

any pleafurable or contented height upon what pretext foevef, it
fattens the root, it prunes and drefTes vice.as if it were a good plant.
Let no man doubt therefore to affirm that it is not fo hurtful or dil-
honourable to a Commonwealth, nor fo much to the hardening of
hearts, when thofe worfe faults pretended to be feard are commit-
ted, by who fo dares under ftri<^and executed penalty, as when
thofe lefs faults tolerated for fear of greater harden their laces, not
their hearts onely, under the prote£lion of publick authority. For
what lefs indignity were this,thenas if Juftice her felf the Queen of
Vertues (defcending from her Sceptred Royalty) inftead of conquer-
ing Ihould compound and treat with fin, her eternal adverlary and
rebel, upon ignoble terms ? or as if the Judicial Law were like that
untruily Steward in the Gofpcl, and inftead of caliing in the debts of
his moral mafter,fhould give out fubtile and fly Acquittances to keep
himfelf from begging ? Or let us perfon him like fome wretched Iti-
nerary Judge,whoto gratifiehis Delinquents before him, would Jet
thembafely break his head,left they fhould pull him from the Bench
and throw him over the Bar.Unlefs we had rather think both Mora!
and Judicial full of malice and deadly purpofeconfpir'dto let the
IDchtov Ifraeliteythc Scedoi^^hraham^icun on upon a bankrupt fcore,
flattered with infufScient and enfnaring Difcharges,that fo he might
be haled to a more cruel forfeit for all the indulgent arrears which
thofe Judicial Acquitments had engaged him in. No no, this cannot
be that the Law, whofe integrity and faithfulnefs is nexttoGod,
fhould be either the fliamelefs broker of our impunities, or the in-
tended inftrument of our defl:ru£lion. The method of holy corre£li-
on, fuch as became the Commonwealth of Ifrael^ is not to bribe f n
with fin,to capitulate and hire out one crime with another : but with
more noble and graceful feveritythen TofrliusthQRoma^LeguuCcd
with ArjtiockHi^to limit and level out the direct way from vice to
vertue,with ftreighteft and exa£left lines on either fide, not winding
or indenting fo much as to the right hand of fair pretences. Violence
indeed and Infurre<^ion may force the Law to fuffer what it cannot
mend 9 but to write a Decree in allowance of fin, asfoon can the
hand of Juftice rot off. Let this be ever concluded as a truth that
will outlive the faith of thofe that feek to bear it down'.

I 2 CHAP.

£q 77je Doctrine dnd Difcifline of Divorce^

C H A P. XV.

7'hat Divorce VP as not given for Wives onely^as Beza andFsiVXUS
write. More of the Insiitution,

IAftly, if Divorce were granted, as Bez^i^ and others fay,not for
^ Men, but to releafe afflided Wives ; certainly it is not onely a
Difpenfation,but a moft merciful LaWjand why it (hould not yet be
inforce^ being wholly needful, I know not what can be in caufe but
lenflels cruelty. But yet to fay, Divorce was granted for relief of
Wives rather then of Husbands, is but weakly conjeclurM,and isma-
nifeftly the extreme Ihift of a huddled expofition. Whenas it could
not be found how hardnefs of he.^rt Ihould be lefTen'd by li-
berty of Divorce,a fancy was^ devis'd to hide the flaw by comment-
ing that Divorce was permitted onely for the help of Wives. Palpa-
bly uxorious I who can be ignorant that Woman was created for
Man,and not Man for Woman •, and that a Husband may be injured
as infufFerably in marriage as a W^ife ? What an injury is it after
\vedlock not to be belovM,what to be flighted, what to be contented
with in point of houie rule who fhall be the head, not for any parity
of wildom, for that werefomething reafonable, but out of a female
pndQlIfuffcr notyhithS.Paul/he woman to pif^rp aittority over the man.
if the Apoftle could not fuffer itjinto what mould is he m.ortified that
can ? Solomon faith, That a bad wife is to her hmhand a^ rottennefs to
his hones ^a continual dr off ing,Better dwell m the corner of the houfetop^
or in the wilder nefs^ then with fuch a one. Whofo hideth her hideth the
yvind^and one of the four mifchiefsthat the earth cannot bear. If the Spi-
rit of God wrote fuch aggravations as thefe,and (as may be gueft by
thefe fimilitudes) counfels the man rather to divorce then to live
with fuch a collegue ^and yet on the other fide exprelTes nothing of
the wifes fuffering with a bad husband.Is it not moft likely that God
in his Law had more pity towards man thus w^edlock'd^then towards
the woman that was created for another ? The fame Spirit relates to
us the courfe w^hich the Medes and Ferfians took by occafion of
F^/?jri,whofe meer denial to come at her husbands fending loft her
the being Queen any longer, and fet up a wholefom Law, that every
man ^witld hear rule in hii own hon^e. And the Divine Relater fhews
usnottheleaftfignofdiflikingwhat was done; how fhould he, if
Mofes long before was nothing lefs mindful of the honour and pre-
eminence due to man.So that to fay Divorce was granted for Wo-
man rather then Man, was but fondly invented , Eft eeming therefore

to

RejJor^d to the good of both Sexes, ^ j

to have aflerted thus an injur'd Law ofMofes from the unwarranted
and guilty name of a Difpenfation, to be again a moft equal and re-
quifiteLaw^we have the Word of Chrifl; himfelF, thathe caraenot
to alter the lead tittle of it *, and fignifies no fmalf difpleafure acainil
him that fhal teach to do fo.On which relying I fhal not much waver
to affirm, that thofe words which are made to intimate^as if they for-
bad all Divorce but for Adultery, (though Af(v/^^ have conftituted
othervvife) thofe words taken circumfcriptly, without regard to any
precedent law ofMofes or atteftation of Ghrifl: himfelf;, or without
care to preferve thole his fundamental and fupcriour laws of nature
and charity, to which all other Ordinances give up their feal, are as
much againft plain equity and the mercy of religion, as thofe words
QfT^:k£yeat^th^sls my ^i?^_y, elementally underftood,are againft nature
and fenfe. -

And furely the reftoring of this degraded Law hath well recom-
pcnc'dthe diligence was us'd by enlightning us further to find out
wherefore Chrift took off the Pharifees from alleging the Law, and
referr'd them to the firft Infl:itution,notcondemning,altering,or abo-
Jiiliing this precept of DivorGe,which is plainly raora^or that were
againft his truth,his promife,and his prophetick office:,but knowing
howfallaciouily they had cited and conceal'd the particular and na-
tural reafon of the Law, that they might juftifie any froward reafon
of their own,he lets go that Sophiftry unconvinc'd,ior that had been
to teach them eife,which his purpofe was not. And fincethey had ta-
ken a liberty which the Law gave not, he amufes and repels their
tempting pride with a perfe<^ion of Paradife, which the Law re-
quir'd not ', not thereby to oblige our performance to that whereto
the Law never enjoyn'd the fallen eftate of Man •, for if the firft Infti-
tutionmuft make wedlock whatever happen jinfeparable to us,it muft
make it alfo as perfe^ as meetly helpful, and as comfortable as God
promis'd it fhould be,at leaft in fome degree •, otherwife it is not e-
qual or proportionable to the ftrength of man, thathe fliould be re-
duc'd into fuch indilToluble bonds to his afTured mifery,ifall theo-
ther conditions of that covenant he manifeftly alter'd.
CHAP. XVI.
Hoxv to he H?7der flood that they muft be one fleflj : and how thJ^
thofe whom God hath ']oyn^ d Man ^ould. not f under .

NExt he faith, they mnfl heoneflefljy which, when all conjecHiuring
is done, will be found to import no more but to make legiti-
mate

52 The Doctrine and Difcipline (^/Divorce,

mate and good the carnal a£l, which elfe nciight feem to have fome-
thmg of poliGtionin it ; and infers thus much over,that the fit union
of their fouls be fiich as may even incorporate them to love and ami-
ty : but that can never be where no Correfpondent is of the mind ;
nay^inftead of being one flefhjthey will be rather twocarcafes chained
unnaturally together *, or^ as it may happen^a living foul bound to a
dead corps, a punishment too like that infii£led by the Tyrant Me-
z.cmmi;io little worthy to be received as that remedy of lonelinefs
which God meant us. Since we know it is not the joyning of another
body will remove lonelmefs, but the uniting of another compliable
mind,and that it is nobleflingbut a torment^nay a bafe and brutiih
condition to be one fleih, unlefs where a nature can in Ibme nature
fix a unity of Dilpofition. The meaning thereof of thefe words,For
this caiife jlmll a man leave his father and his motherland jljall cleave to
his wlfejwsis firft to (hew us the dear afFedion which naturally grows
in every not unnatural Marriage, even to the leaving of parents, or
other familiarity whatroever.Next5it juftifies a man in fo doing, that
nothing is done undutifully to father or mother. But he thatihould
be here fternly commanded to cleave to his error, a difpofition which
to his he finds will never cement a quotidian of forrowand difcon-
tent in his houle, let us beexcus'd to paufe a little, and bethink us
every way round ere we lay fuch a flat Solccifm upon the gracious,
and certainly not inexorable, not rufhlefs and flinty Ordinance of
Marriage.For inthe meaning of thefe w^ords mufi: be thus block'd up
within their own letters from all equity and fair dedu(flion,they will
ferve then well indeed their turn, w^ho aflirm Divorce to have been
granted onely for wives ^ whenas we fee no word of this Text binds
Vv^omen,but Men onely,what it binds. No marvel then if Salomith
(Siflier to Herod) fentaWrit of Eafe to Cafiobar^ her Husband,
which (as Jofefhm there attefts) was lawful only to Men. No marvel
though Placidia the Sifter of Honorim threatned the like to Earl
Conftantim for a trivial caufe, as Thotmi relates from Olympodorus,
No marvel any thing if Letters muftbeturn'd into Palifadoes, to
ftake out all requifite fenfe from entring to their due enlargement.

LaftlyjChrifthimfelf tells who fhouldnot beput afunder,namely,
thofe whom God hath joyn'd. A plain folution of this great contro-
verfie,if men would but ufe their eyes ; for when is it that God may
be faid to joyn,when the parties and their friends confent ? No fure-
ly/or that may concur to Icvs^deft ends.Or is it when Churches Rites

are

Rejior^d to the good of both Sexes, 5^

arefinilh'd? Neither;, for the efficacy of thofe depends upon the
prefuppofed fitnefs of either party .Perhaps after carnal knowledge ?
Leaft of all , for that may joyn perfons whom neither Law nor Na-
ture dares joyn : 'tis left, that only then when the minds are fitly dif-
pofed and enabled to maintain a chearful converfation, to thefolace
and love of each other, according as God intended and promifed in
the very firfl foundation of Matrimony, I will make him a hcl^ meet
for him'^ for furely what God intended and promifed, that onely can
be thought to be his joyningjand not the contrary. So likewife the
Apoftle witneiTeth i Cor^-j. 1 5. that in Marriage God hath called m to
fe^tce.Kridi doubtlefs in what refpecl he hath call'd us to Marriagejin
that alfo he hath joynM us. The reft, whom, either difproportion or
deadnefsof fpirit,or fomething diftafteful and averfe in the immuta-
ble bent of Nature renders conjugal, error may have JQynM,but God
never joyn'd againft the meaning of his own Ordinance. And if he
joyn'd them not,then is there no power above their own confent to
hinder them from unjoyning,when they cannot reap the fobreft ends
of being together in any tolerable fort.Neither can it be faid proper-
ly that fuch twain were ever divorc'd, but onely parted from each
other jas tw^o perfons unconjunflive and unmarriable together. But if,
whom God hath made a fit help,torwardnefs or private injuries hath
made unfit, that being thefecret of Marriage God can better judge
then Man5neither is Man indeed fit or able to decide this matter :
however it be,undoubtedly a peaceful Divorce is alefsevil, and lefs
in fcandal then a hateful hardhearted and deflru5tive continuance of
Marriage in the judgment ofMofes and of Chrift, that juftifies him
m chufmg the lefs evil, which if it were an honeft and civil prudence
in the Law,whatis there in the Gofpel forbidding fuch a kind of le-
gal wifdom, though we fhould admit the common Expofitors ?

CHAP. XVII.

The Sentence ofChrifl concerning Divorce how to he expounded.
What Grotius hath obferved. Other Additions.

HAving thus unfolded thofe ambiguous Reafons, wherewith
Chrift (as his wont was) gave to the Pharifees that came to
found him fuch ananfwer as they deferv'd, it will not be uneafie to
explain the Sentence it felf now that ioWo^s y/hofoever Jhallpm away
his wife J except it beforfornication-y andjliall marry another^commltteth
adultery, Firft therefore I will fet down what is obferv'd by Grotini

upon

^4 ^^^ DoUrine md Difcl^l'mt (^/Divorce,

upon this point^a man of general learning.Nextl produce what mine
own thoughts gave me before I had feen his Annotations. Origen^
faith he, notes thatChrift nam'd Adultery rather as one example of
other like cares,then as one onely exception. And that it isfrequent
not onely in human but in divine Law;?, to exprefs one kind of fa<ft,
whereby other caufes of like nature may have the like plea, as Exod.
2i.i8,I952o,26.jD^/^^M9.5. And from the Maxims of Civil Law he
ihewSjthat even in (harpeft Penal Laws the fame realbn hath the fame
right ', and in gentler Laws, that from like caufes to like the Law in-
teiprets rightly. But it may be obje£led, (liith he, that nothing de-
ilroys the end of wedlock fo much as adultery .To which heaniwers,
that Marriage was not ordain'd only for copulation^but for mutual
help and comfort ot life : and if we mark diligently the nature of our
Saviours commands,we fliall find that both their beginning and their
end confifts in charity *, whofe will is that we fhould be lb good to
others,asthat we be not cruel to our felves. And hence it appears
why Markjind Lnke^ and S.Paid to the Corinthians y mentioning this
precept of Chrift adde no exception : becaufe exceptions that arife
from natural equity are included filently under general terms : it
would be confider'd therefore whether the fame equity may not
have place in other cafes lefs frequent. Thus far he. From hence is
what I adde : fir(l,that this faying of ChriH, as it is ufualiy expound-
cdjCan be no law at all, that a man for no caufe fhould feparate but
for adultery, except it be a fupernatural law, not binding us as we
are had it been the law of nature,either the Jews^ orfome other wife
and civil nation would have prefs'd it : or let it be fo,yet that law,
Df^f .24. 1, whereby a man hath leave to part, whenas for juft and
natural caufe difcover'd h£ cannot love,is a law ancienter and deeper
ingraven in blamelefs nature then the other : therefore the infpired
Lawgiver Mofes took care that this (hould befpecifiedand allowed :
the other he let vanifh in filence, not once repeated in the volum of
his Law, even as the reafon of it vanifh'd with Paradife. Secondly,
this can be no new command, for the Gofpel enjoyns no new morali-
ty ,fave onely the infinite enlargement of charity , which in this refpeft
is called the new commandment by S. John^ as being the accomplifh-
ment of every comraand.Thirdly,it is no command ofperfeftion fur-
ther then it partakes of charity, which is the bond ofperfeU:lon. Thofe
commands therefore which compell us to felf cruelty above our
ftrengthjfo hardly w^ill help forward to perfeaion,thatthey hinder

and

Refior'^dtothegoodofboth Sexes, 6^

and fet backward in all the common rudiments of Chriftlanity, as
was prov'd. It being thus clear, that the words of Chrift can be no
kind of command as they are vulgarly taken, we fhall now fee in
what fenfe they may be a command, and that an excellent one, the
fame with that o^ Mofes^2LX\^ no other. Mofes had granted that onely
for a natural annoyance,defe£ljOr diilike,whether in body or mind,
(for fo the Hebrew words plainly note) which a man could not force
himfelf tolivewuthjhe might give a bill of divorce, thereby forbid-
ding any other caufe wherein amendment or reconciliation might
have place.This Law the Fharifees depraving extended to any flight
contentious caufc whatioever. Chrift therefore feeing where they
halted urges the negative part of that Law, which is neceffarily un-
derftood (for the determinate permiflion o't Mofes binds them from
farther licence) and checking their fupercilious drift, declares that
no accidental,tcmporary,or reconcilable ofFenee^exceptlornication)
can juftifie a Divorce.He touches not here thofe natural and perpe-
tual'hindrances of fociety, whether in body or mind,whicharenot to
be remov'd ; for fuch as they are apteft to caufe an unchangeable of-
fence fo are they not capable of reconcilement becaufe not of amend-
ment : they do not break indeed,but they annihilate the bands of mar-
riage mo: e then Adultery .For that fault committed argues not always
a hatred either natural or incidental againfl whom it is commit-
ted '^ neither does it infer a difability of future helpfulnefs, or loyal-
ty,or loving agreement, being once paft and pardon'd, where it can
be pardonM : but that which naturally diftaftes,andyj;7<fl^j no favour in
r/?f f^fjofMatrimonyjCanneverbe conceal'd^never appeas'd, never
intermitted, but proves a perpetual nullity of love and contentment,
a folitude and dead vacation of all acceptable converfmg. Mofes
therefore permits Divorce, but in cafes onely that have no hands to
joyn,and more need feparating then Adultery. Chrift forbids it,but
in matters onely that may accord, and thofe lefs then Fornication.
Thus is Mofesh^Yi here plainly confirm'djand thofe caufes which he
permitted not a jot gainfaid. And that this is the true meaning of
this place I prove by no other Author then S.T^///himfeIf, i Cor. 7.
lb, 1 1. upon which Text Interpreters agree that the Apoftle onely
repeats the precept of Chrift : where while he fpeaks oUhe wifes re-
concilement to her hmbandjhe puts it out of controverfie,that our Sa-
viour meant chiefly matters of ftrife and reconcilement *, of which
fort he would not that any difference fnould be the occafion of Di-
vorce,except Fornication. And that we may learn better how to va-

K luc

45(5 ^^^ Oo^rm^ and Difci flint of Divorce ,

lue a grave and prudent Law of Mofes^ and how unadvifedly we
fmatter with our lips,when we talk of Chrifts abolifhing any Judici-
al Law of his great Father, except in fome circumftances which are
Judaical rather then Judicial, and need no abolifhing-, butceafe of
themfelves : ] fay again, that this recited Law ofMofes contains a
caufe of Divorce greater beyond compare then that for Adultery ;
and whofo cannot fo conceive it,errs and wrongs exceedingly a Law
of deep wifdom for want of well fadoming. For let him raark,no man
urges the juft divorcing of Adultery as it is a On, but as it is an in-
jury to Marriage ; and though it be but once committed, and that
without malice, whether through importunity or opportunity, the
Gofpel does not therefore diffuade him who would therefore di-
vorce ; but that natural hatred ,whcncver it arifes,is a greater evil in
Marriage then the accident of Adultery, a greater defrauding, a
greater injuflice,and yet not blameable,he who underftands not after
all this reprefentingji doubt his Will like a hard Spleen draws fader
then his Underftanding can well languifie. Nor did that man ever
know or feel what it is to love truly, nor ever yet comprehend in his
thoughts what the true intent of Marriage is. And this alfo will be
fomewhat above his reach,but yet no lefs a truth for lack of his per-
lpe(!^ive,that as no man apprehends what vice is fo well as he who is
truly vertuous, no man knows Hell like him who converfcs moft in
Heaven,fo there is none that can eftimate the evil and theafflidion of
a natural hatred in Matrimony, unlefs he have a foul gentle enough
and fpacious enough to contemplate what is true love.

And the reafon why men fo difefteem this wife judging Law of
God,and count hate,or the net finding of favour ^^s it is there term'd,
a humorous ,a difhoneft,and flight caufe of Divorce,is becaufe them-
felves apprehend fo little of what true concord means : for if they
did,they would be jufter in their balancing between natural hatred
and cafual adultery *, this being but a transient injuryjand foon amen-
ded,! mean as to the party againft whom the trefpafs is : but that
other being an unfpeakable and unremitting forrow and offence,
whereof no amends can be made,no cure,no ceafmg but by Divorce,
which like a divine touch in one moment heals all, and (like rfie
Word of God) in one inftant hufhes outrageous tempefts into a fud-
den ftilnefs and peaceful calm. Yet all this fo great a good of Gods
own enlarging to us, is by the hard rains of them that fit us wholly
diverted and imbezelled from us. Maligners of mankind ! But who
hath taught youto mangle thus, and make more gafhes in the mife-

ries

Rejlor'^d tothegoodofboth Sexes. 6j

ries of a blamclefs creature, with the leaden daggers of your literal
Decrees, to whofe eafe you cannot adde the tithe of one fmall atom,
but by letting alone your unhelpful Surgery. As for fuch as think
wandring concupifccnce to be here newly and more precifely for-
bidden then it was before, if the Apoftle can convince them *, we
knowthat we are to knovs? Infi by the LaWj and not by any new difco-
very of theLaw.TheLaw of^^^/^iknew what it permitted, and the
Gofpel knew what it forbid \ he that under a peevifh conceit of de-
barring concupilcence ftall go about to make a Novice of Afi?/^/,
(not to fay a worfe thing for reverence fake) and fuch a one of God
himfelf,as is a horror tothink5to bind oi r Saviour in the default ofa
downright promife breaking, and to blind the difunions of com-
plaining nature in chains together, and curb them with a Canon bit,
'tis he that commits all the whoredom and adultery, which himfelf
adjudges, befides the former guilt fo manifold that lies upon him.
And if none of thcfe confiderations with all their weight and gravity
can avail to the difpofTefling him of his precious LiteraIifm,letfomc
one or other intreat him but to read on in the fame 19 ofMatth, till
he come to that place thatfays,So«?f make themfelves Euriuchsfor the
Kingdom of Heavens fake. And if then he pleafe to make ufe of OrL
gens Knife, he may do well to be his own Carver.
CHAP. XVllI.
whether the xcord of our Saviour he rightly exfoundedonely ofaEtu^
al fornication to be the caufe of Divorce. The Opinion of
Grotius, v^ith other reafcns.

BU T becaufe we know that Chrift never gave a Judicial Law>
and that the word fornication is varioufly fignificant in Scripture,
it will be much right done to our Saviours words, to confider dili-
gently whether it be meant here that nothing but a^Slual fornication
prov'd by witnefs can warrant a Divorce, for fo our Canon Law
judges Neverthelefs as I find thaxGroti^i^ on this place hath obferv'd
the Chriftian Empcroms ^Thecdo/ifu the fecond and jufiinian fmcn of
high wifdom and reputed piety ,decreed it to be a divorcive fornica-
tion, if the wife attempted either againft the knowledge, orobfti-
nately againft the will of her husband,fuch things as gave open fufpi-
tionsof adulterizing, as the wilful haunting of Feafts^and Invitations
with men not of her near kindred ,the lying forth of her houfe with-
out probable caufe, the frequenting of Theatres againft her husbands
mind,her endeavour to prevent ordeftroy Conception. Hence that of
Jerom.^Where fornication isfuf^e^edthe mfe may lawfully hedpvorc'*d ^

K 2 not

£^ The Doctrine and Difcifline of Divorce ,

not that every motion of a jealous mind fhould be regarded, but
that it fhould not be exafted to prove all things by a viiibility of
Law witnefling, or elfe to hoodwunkthe mind : for the Law is not
able to judge of thefe things but by the rule of equity, and by per-
mitting a wife man to walk the middle way of prudent circumlpe£li-
on,,neither wretchedly jealous,nor ftupidly and tamely patient. To
this purpofe hath Grottm in his Notes. He fhews alfo that Fornicati-
on is taken in Scripture for luch a continual headftrong behaviour,
as tends to plain contempt of the husband, and proves out of J/^4^^j
19.2. where the Levites wife is faid to have plaid the whore againft
him *, which Jofefhm and the SeptHagwtymth the Chaldean jinter^rtt
onely of ftubbornnefs and rebellion againft her husband : and to this
I adde that Kimchi^ and the two other Rabbles who glofs the Text,
are in the fame opinion. Ben Gerfom realons,that had it been whore-
dom,a Jew and a Levite would have difdain'd to fetch her again .And
thisi fhall contribute, that had it been whoredom, fhe would have
chofen any other place to run to then to her fathers houle, it being
fo mfamous for an Hebrew woman to play theHarlot,aad fo oppro-
brious to the parents. Fornication then in this place oit\\t Judges is
underftood forftubborn difobedience againft the husband, and not
for adultery. A fin ofthat fudden activity as to be already commit-
ted5when no more is done,but onely lookt unchaftely : which yet I
would be loth to judge worthy a Divorce, though in our Saviours
language it be called Adultery . Never thelefs when palpable and fre-
quent figns are given, the Law ofGod,A^;^«^.5. fo far gave way to
thejealoufieofa man, as that the woman fet before the San^uary
with her headuncovered,was adjur'd by thePrieft to fwear whether
fhe were falfe or no, and conftrain'd to drink that hitter water with
an undoubted cnrfe of rottennefs and tympany to follow, unlefs {he>.
were innocent. And the jealous man had not been guiltlefs before
God,as feems by the laft verfe,if ha ving fuch a fufpicion in his head,
he fhould negledl his trial ^ which if to this day it be not to be us'd,
or bethought as uncertain of effeft as our antiquated Law of Orda-
Hum, yet all equity will judge that many adulterous demeanours,
which are of lewd fufpition and example, may be held fufficient to
incur a Divorce, though the aft it felf hath not been prov'd. And
feeing the generofity of our Nation is fo, as to account no reproach
more abominable then to be nicknam'dthe Husband ofanAdulte-
refs, that our Law fhould not be as ample as the Law of God to vin-
dicate a man from that ignoble TufFerance, is our barbarous unskil-

fulnefs.

Rejlor^d to the good of both Sexes. 6g

fulnefs, not confidering that the Law ihould be exafperated accord-
ing to oureftimation of the injury. And if it muft be fufFer'd till the
adl be vifibly prov'd,^!?^^;? himfelf, whofe judgment will be grant-
ed to furpafs the acutenefs of any Canonift, confelTes^Pyo, 30. 19,20.
that for the a^ft of Adultery it is as difficult to be found asthefr^cj^
of an Eagle in the air^or the way of a Ship in the Sea ^ fo that a man
may be put to unmanly indignities ere it be found out. This there-
fore may be enough to inform us,that Divorcive Adultery is not li-
mited by our Saviour to the utmoft aft, and that to be attefted al-
ways by eye witnefsjbut may be extended alfo to divers ob.vious afti-
ons,which either plainly lead to Adultery ^or give fuch prefumption
whereby fenfible men may fufpeftthe deed to be already done. And
this the rather may be thought, in that our Saviour chofe to ufc the
\s ox di fornication^ which word is found to fignifie other matrimonial
tranfgrcflionsof main breach to that covenant befides aftual Adulte-
ry .For that fm needed not the riddance of Divorce, but of death by
the Law, which was active even till then by the example of the wo-
man taken in adultery j or if the Law had beendormant,our Saviour
was more likely to have told them of their negleft, then to have let a
capital crime filently fcape into a Divorce : or if it befaid, his bufi-
nels was not to tell them what was criminal in the Civil Courts, but
what was fmful at the Bar ofConfcience, how dare they then having
no other ground then thefe our Saviours words,draw that into trial
of Law,which both M^fis and our Saviour have left to the jurifdidi-
on ofConfcience ? But we take from our Saviourjfay they,onely that
it was Adultery, and our Law of it felfapplies the puniiliment. But.
by their leave that fo argue, the great Lawgiver of all the world,
who knew beft what was Adultery both to the Jew and to the
Gentile, appointed no fuch applying, and never likes when mortal
men will be vainly prefuming to outftrip his Juftice.

CHAP. XIX.

ChriBs manner of teaching, 5.Paul adds to this matter of Divorce with-
out command to fhexv the matter to be of equity^ not of rigour. That
the bondage of a Chrifiian may be a^ mnch^. and in peace U4 little^ in
fpme other Marriages befides Idolatrom, Jfthofe Arguments there--
fore be good in that one cafe^ why not in thofe other . Therefore the
Apoftlehimf elf adds Iv iu<i Tn^nm ,

THus at length we fee both by this and by other places, that
there is fcarce any one faying in the Gofpel but muft be read

with

yo The Do^rme and D'tfcifUm e>/Divorcc^

with limitations and di(lin£^ions to be rightly underftood *, for Chrift
gives no full comments or continued diicouries, but (as Demetrim
^t Rhetorician phrafes it) fpeaks oft in Monofyllables, like a Ma-
fler Icattering the heavenly grain of his Doctrine like Pearls here
and there, which requires a skilful and laborious gatherer, who
muft compare the words he finds with other precepts, with the end
of every Ordinance,and with the general analogy of Evangellck Do-
<fh'ine : othervvife many particular fayings would be but one repug-
nant riddle, and the Church vs'ould offend in granting Divorce for
Frigid ity,which is not here accepted with Adultery, but by them ad-
ded.And this was it undoubtedly which gave rcaibn to S.P^Wof his
own authority as he profefres,and without command from the Lord,
to enlarge thefeeming conftru6lion of thofeplaces in the Gofpel, by
adding a cafe wherein a perfon deferted, which is fomethinglefs then
divorc'd,may lawfully marry again And having declared his opinion
in one cafe, he leaves a further liberty for Chriftian prudence to de-
term ine in cafes of like importance^ufiag words fo plain as are not to
be (hifted off, that a brother or afifter is not mider bondage in fiich ca.-
/^J",adding alfojthat God hath called m to peace in Marriage.

Now if it be plain that a Chriftian may be brought into unworthy
bondage^ and his religious peace not onely interrupted now and then,
but perpetually and finally hinder'd in wedlock by mifyoking with
a diverfity of nature as well as of ReIigion,the reafons oiS.Papil can-
not be made fpecial to that one cafe of infidelity, but are of equal
moment to a Divorce, whereever Chriftian liberty and peace are
without fault equally obftrufted. That the Ordinance which God
gave to our comfort, may not be pinn'd upon us to our undefervcd
thraldom, to be coop'd upas it were in mockery of wedlock to a
perpetual betrothed lonelinefs and difcontent, if nothing worfe en-
lue. There being nought elfe of Marriage left between fuch but a
<lifpleafing and forc'd remedy againft the fting of a brute defire;
which fleihly accuftoming without the Souls union and commixture
^f intelleftual delightjas it is rather a foiling then a fulfilling of Mar-
riage Rites, fo is it enough to abafe the mettle of a generous fpiritj
and finks him to a low and vulgar pitch of endeavour in all his at^ii-
ons,or (which is worfe) leaves him in a defpairing plight of abjed
and hardned thoughts : which condition rather then a good man
fhould fall into, a man ufeful in the fervice of God and Mankind,
Chrift himfelf hath taught us to difpence with the moft facrcd Ordi-
nance of his Worfhip,evenfor a bodily healing to difpence with that

holy

Refior*d to the good of both Sexes. jx

holy and fpeculative reft of Sabbath, much more then with the erro-
neous obfervanceof an ill knotted Marriage, for the fuftaining of an
overcharged faith and perfeverance.

CHAP. XX.
The meamng of S.?^u\ythat charity believeth all things. What is to bt
faid to the Licence which is vainly fear'^dwtll grow hereby. What to
thofe who never have done prefer ibing patience in that cafe. The Pa-
pifi ptofi fevere againfi Divorce, yet mofi eafie to all Licence, Of all
the m'feries in Marriage Godi^sto be clear d^and the fanltsto be laid
on Mansimjuft Laws.

AND though bad caufes would take licence by this pretext, if
that cannot be remedied, upon their confcience be it who fhali
io do.This was that hardnefs of hcart,and abufe of a good Law,which
Mofes was content to fufFer, rather then good men fhould not have
it at all to ufe needfully. And he who to run after one loft fheep left
ninety nine of hisownflocK at random in the wildernefs,wouid little
perplex his thoughts for the obduring of nine hundred and ninety
luch as will daily take worfe liberties,whethcr they have permilTion
or not.To conclude,as without charity God hath given no command-
ment to men/o without it neither can men rightly believe any com-
mandment given. For every adl of true faith,as well that whereby we
believe the Law ^as that whereby we endeavour the Law,is wrought
in us by charity, according to that in the Divine Hymn of S. Panl^
I Cor, 1 5. Charity believeth all things-^ not as if fhe were fo credu-
Ious,which is the Expofition hitherto current^for that were a trivial
praife, but to teach us that Charity is the high governefs of our be-
lief, and that we cannot fafely alTent to any precept vvritten in the
Bible,but as Charity commends it to us. Which agrees with that of
thefameApoft!etothe£/?/7?/]4.i4,i5. where he tells us that the
way to get a llire undoubted knowledge of things, is to hold that for
Truth which accords moft with Charity. Whofe unerring guidance
and condua having foUow'd as a Loadftar with all diligence and fi-
delity in this queftion, I truft (through the help of that illuminating
Spirit which hath favoured me) to have done no every days work,ia
afferting after many Ages the words ofChrift with other Scriptures
of great concernment from burdenfom and reraorflefs obfcurity,
tangled with manifold repugnancies, to their native luftre and con-
fent between each other \ hereby alfo difTolving tedeous and Gordi-
an difficulties,which have hitherto molefted the Church of God, and
are now decided not with the Sword 0^ Alexander^ but with the im-
maculate

72 The DoHrine md Difcifline (^/Divorce,

maculate hands of Charity ,to the unfpeakable good ofChriftendom.
And let the extreme Literalift fit down now and revolve whether this
in all neceflity be not the due refult of our Saviours words *, or if he
perfiffc to be otherwifeopinion'd, let hira well advife left thinking to
gripe faft the Gofpel, he be found inftead w^ith the Canon Law in his
€(l : whofe boifterous Edivls tyrannizing the blelTed Ordinance of
Marriage into the quality of a moft unnatural and unchriftianly
yoke, have given the flelh this advantage to hate it, and turn afide,
oft times unwillingly,to alldifTolute uncleannefsjeventill punifhment
it felf is weary and overcome by the incredible frequency of trading
Luftand uncontrolled Adulteries. Yet men whofe Creed is Cuftom,
I doubt not but will be ftill endeavouring to hide the floth of their
Own timorous capacities with this pretext,that for all this 'tis better
to indure with patience and filence this aftlidion which God hath
fent.And I agree 'tis true^if this be exhorted and not enjoyned ^ but
withall it will be wifely done to be as fure as may bejthat what mans
iniquity hath laid on be not imputed to Gods fending, left under
the colour of an affecfled patience we detain our lelves at the
gulphs mouth of many hideous temptations, not to bewitbftood
without proper gifcs,which (as Perkins w^ell notes) God gives not or-
dinarily,no not to moft earneft prayers. Therefore we ^x^^^Leadi^A
not into temptation '^2l vain pray er,if having led our felves thither we
love to ftay m that perillous condition. God fends remedies as well
evils, under which he w^ho lies andgrones, that may lawfully acquit
himfelf,is accefTory to his own ruine : nor will it excufe him though
he liifF.r through a fluggifh fearfulnefs to fearch throughly what is
lawful, forfearofdifquietingofa fecurefalfity ofanold Opinion.
Who doubts not but that it may be pioufly faid, to him who would
difmifs his frigidity , bear your trial ,take it,as if God would have you
live this life of continence : if he exhort this 1 hear him as an Angel,
though he fpeak without warrant i but if he would compell me, I
know him for Satan. To him who divorces an adultrefs Piety might
lay,Pardon her ; you may fliew much mercy, you may win a foul :
yet the Law both of God and Man leaves it freely to him *, for God
loves not to plow out the heart of our endeavours with over hard
and fad tasks. God delights not to make a drudge of Vertue, whofe
anions muft be all eleaive and unconftrained. Forc'd Vertue is as a
Bolt overihot, it goes neither forward nor backward, and does no
good as it ftands.Seeing therefore that neither Scripture nor Reafon
hath laid thisunjuft aufterity upon Divorce,we may refolve that no-
thing

Rejlor^d to the good of both Sexes. 6$

thing elfe hath wrought it but that Letter-bound Servility of the
Canon Dcftors, fuppofing Marriage to be a Sacrament, and out of
the art they have to lay unneceiTary burdens upon all men, to make a
fair fhew in the fiefniy obfen'ance of Matrimony, though peace and
love with all other conjugal refpe£ls fare never lb ill. And indeed
the Papifts, who are the ftri£left forbidders of Divorce, are the eafi-
ell Libertines to admit of groffeft uncleannefs ;, as if they had ade-
fign by making Wedlock a lupportlefs yoke to violate it moft,under
colour of preferving it moft inviolable *, and withall delighting (as
their myflery is) to make men the day-labourers of their ownaffli-
^ions^as if there werefuch a fcarcity of miferiesfrom abroad, that
we fhould be made to melt our choiceft home blefungs, and coin
them into crofTes, for w^ant whereby to hold commerce with pati-
ence.If any therefore who fliall hap to read thisDifcourfe^hath been
through miladventure ill engaged in this contraded evil here com-
plain'd of, and finds the fits and workings of a high impatience
frequently upon him, of all thofe wilde words which men in mifery
think to eafe themfelves by uttering,Iet him not open his lipsagainft
the Providence of Heaven, or tax the ways of God and his Divine
Truth ; for they are equal, eafie, and not burdenfom •, nor do they
ever crofsthe juft and reafonable de'ires of mcn,nor involve this our
portion of mortal life into a necefiity of fadnefs and malecontent,by
Laws commanding over the unreducible antipathies ofNaturefobn-.
cr or later round,but allow us to remedy and fhake off thofe evils in-
to which human error hath led us through the midft of our beft in-
tentions, and to fupport our incident extremities by that authentick
precept of fovereign charity, whofe grand commiflion is to do and
to difpofe over all the Ordinances of God to Man,that love and truth
may advance each other toeverlafting.While we literally iuperftiti-
ous through cuftomary faintnefs of heart, not venturing to pierce
with our free thoughts into the full latitude oF Nature and Religi-
on, abandon our felves to ferve under the tyranny of ufurp'd Opini-
onSjfuffering thofe Ordinances which w^ere allotted to our folace and
reviving,to trample over us and hale us into a multitude of forrow^s,
which God never meant us. And where he fets us in a fair allowance
of way, with honed liberty and prudence to our guard, we never
leave fubtilizing and cafuifting till we have flraitned and pared that
liberal path into a Razors edge to walk on, between a precipice of
.unneceiTary mifchief on cither fide,and ftarting at every falfe Alarm

L we

no The D^rine and Difcif line of Divorce,

we do not know which way to fet a foot forward with manly confi-
dence and Chriftian tefolution, through the confufed ringing in our
cars of panickfcruples and amazements.

CHAP. XXI.
That the matter of Divorce is not to he tried by Lar^^hfit by Confciencey
as many other fins are. The Magiflrate can onely fee that the condi-
tion of Divorce he \ufh and equal. The Opinion of Fagius, and the
reafons of this Affertion,

ANother aft of Papal encroachment it was, to pluck the power
and arbitrement of Divorce from the Matter of the Family, in-
to whofe hands God and the Law of all Nations had put it, and
Chrid foleft it preaching onely to the Confcience, and not authori-
zing a Judicial Courf to tofs about and divulge the unaccountable
andfecret reafon of difafFeftions between man and wife, as a thing
moft improperly anfwerable to any fuch kind of trial. But the Popes
o^Rome perceiving the great Revenue and high Authority it would
give them even over Princes,to have the judging and deciding of fuch
a main confcqucnce in the life of man as was Divorce, wrought fo
upontheSuperftitionofthofeAges, as todiveft them of that right
which God from the beginning had entrufted to the Husband : by
which means they fubjefted that ancient and naturally domeftick
Prerogative to an external and unbefitting Judicature.For although
differences in Divorce about Dowries, Joyntures, and the like, be-
fides the punifliing of Adultery, ought not to pafs without referring
if need be to the Magiftrate,yet that theabfolute and final hindering
of Divorce cannot belong to any civil or earthly power, againftthe
will and confent of both parties, or of the Husband alone, fome rea-
fons will be here urg'das (hall not needto decline the touch. But firft
I (hall recite what hath been already yielded by others in favour of
this Opinion. Croti-M and many more agree, that notwithftanding
what Chrift fpake therein to the Confcience, theMagiftrate isnot
thereby enjoyn'd ought againll the prefervation of civil peace, of
equity ,and of convenience. Among thefe F^j^^'^ is mod remarkable,
and gives thefame liberty of pronouncing Divorce to the Chriftian
Magiftrate as theMofaick \i^kSor whatever (faith hej Chrifilfaketo
the regenerate,, the Judge hath to deal with the vulgar : if therefore an^
through hardnefs of he art will not he a tolerable Wife to her hmhand^it
mil he lawful as Well now as of old to pafs the hill of Divorce ^^not by pri-
vate^hut by puhlickjtuthority.Nor doth man feparate them then yhut God
by his Law of Divorce given by M<>^Q%What can hinder the Magiftrate

from

Rejior^d to the good of both Sexts. 7 x

fromfo doing^to whofe govertiment all outward things arefuhjeEt^ tofe^
■par ate and remove from perpetual vexation and no fmall danger^ thofe
bodies whofe minds are already feparate ^ it being his office to procure
peaceable and convenient living in the Commonwealth \ and being 04 cer*
tain alfo^ that they fo neceffarily feparated cannot all receive a fmgh
life. And this I oblerve,that our Divines do generally condemn repa-
ration of bed and board,without the liberty of fecond choice ; if that
therefore in fome cafes be moft purely neceflary, as vs ho fo blockifh
to deny ? then is this alfo as needful. Thus far by others is already
well ftept, to inform us that Divorce is not a matter of Law but of
Charity : if there remain a furlong yet to end the queftion, thefc
following reafons may ferve to gain it with any apprehen%nnot too
unlearned or too wayward.Firft becauie oft times the caufes of feek-
ing Divorce refide fo deeply in the radical and mnocentafFecftionsof
Nature^as is not within thediocefe of Law to tamper with.Other re-
lations may aptly enough be held together by a civil and vertuous
love : but the duties of man and wife are fuch as are chiefly conver-
fant in that love, which is moft ancient and meerly natural, whole
two prime ftatutes are to joyn it felf to that which is good, and. ac-
ceptable, and friendly *, and to turn afide and depart from what is
difiigreeable, difplcafing, and unlike : of the two this later is the
ftrongeft, and moft equal to be regarded ; for although a man may
often be unjuftin feeking that which he loves, yet he can never be
unjuft or blameable in retiring from his endlefs trouble and diftafte,
whenas his tarrying can redound to no true content on either fide.
Hate is of all things the mightieft divider ,nay it is dividon it fekV To
couple hatred therefore,though wedlock try all her golden links^and
borrow to her aid all the iron manacles and fetters of law^, it does
but feek to twift a rope of fand,which w^as a task they iliy that pob'd
the Devil : and that fluggifh fiend in hell Ocnm^ whom the Poems
tell us of, brought his idle cordage to as good effect, which never
ferv'd to bind with, but to feed the Afs thatftood at his elbow. And
that the reftri£live Law againft Divorce attains as little to bind any
thing truly in a disjoynted Marriage,or to keep it bound, but ferves
onely to feed the ignorance and definitive impertinence of a doltifh
Canon^were no abfurd allufion. To hinder. therefore thofe deep and
ferious regreftcs of Nature in a reafonable foul parting from that
miftaken help which he juftly fceks in a perfon created for him, re-
collecting himfelf from an unmeet help which was never meant, and *
to detain him by compullion in fuch an unpredeftin'd mifery as this,

L 2 is

«i 71)6 Doctrine andDifci^line c/Divorcc,

is in a diameter againft both Nature and Inftitution: but to inter-
pofe a Jurifdictive Power over the inward and irremediable diipofi-
tion of Man5to command love and fympathy,to forbid diflike againft
theguihlefs inftindl of Nature, is not within the Province of any
Law to reach, and were indeed an uncoramodious rudenefs, not a
juft power : for that Law may bandy With. Nature, and traverfe her
face motions, was an error in Collides the Rhetorician, whom Socra-
tes from high principles confutes in Plato's Gorgias, If therefore Di-
vorce may befo natural, and that Law and Nature are not to go
contrary •, then to forbid Divorce compulfively, is not onely againft
Nature, but againft Law.

Next, it muft be remembred that all Law is for fome good that
may be frequently attain'd, without the admixture ofa worfe incon-
venience ; and therefore many grofs faults, as ingratitude and the
like,which are too far within the foul, to be cur'd by conftraint of
Law, are left onely to be wrought on by confcience and perfuafion.
Which made Anftotle in the loth. oi\)\!i Ethicks to Nicomach^^dm
at a kind of divifionof Law into private or perfuarive5and publickor
compulfive. Hence it is that the Law forbidding Divorce, never at-
tains to any good end of fuch Prohibition, but rather multiplies evil.
For if Natures refiftlefs fway in love or hate be once compell'd, it
grows carelefsof it felf,vitious,ufelers to friends, unferviceable and
fpiritlefs to the Commonwealth. Which Mofes rightly forefaw, and
all wife Lawgivers that ever knew man, what kind of creature he
was. The Parliament alfo and Clergy o{ England were not ignorant
of this, when they confented that H^trr); the 8th. might put away
his Queen Anne ofCleve^ whom he could not like after he had been
wedded half a year *, unlefs it w^ere that contrary to the Proverb,
they made a necelTity of that w^hich might have been a vertue in
them to do: for even the freedom and eminence of mans creation
gives him to be a Law in this matter to himfelf,being the head of the
other fex which was made for him ^ whom therefore though he
ought not to injure, yet neither fhould he be forc'd ,to retain info-
ciety to his own overthrow, nor to hear any Judge therein above
himfelf.lt being alfo an unfeemly affront to the fequeftr'd and vaiPd
modefty ofthatSex, to have her unplcafmgnefs and other conceal-
ments bandied up and down, and aggravated in open Court by thofe
hir'd raaftersof tongue-fence. Such uncomely exigencies it befell
no lefs aMajefty then//(?;??7the VIII. to bereduc'd to,who finding
juft reafon in his confcience to forgo his brothers wife, after many

in-

Refior^dto the good of both Sexts. 73

indignities of being deluded,and made a boy of by thofe two Cardi-
nal Judges, was conftrain'd at laft for want of other proofthatfhe
had been carnally known by Prince Arthur ^ even to uncover the na-
kednefs of that vertuous Lady, and to recite openly the obfcene evi-
dence of his Brothers Chanaberlain. Yet it pleas'd God to make him
fee all the Tyranny o'tRome^b^ difcovering this which they exercis'd
over Divorce, and to make him the beginner of a Reformation
to this whole Kingdom,by firft afTerting into his familiary Power the
right of juftDivorce.'Tis true,an Adultrefs cannot befhara'd enough
by any publick proceeding *, but the woman whofe honour is not im-
peach'd, is lefs injur'd by a filent difmillion, being otherwife not li-
berally dealt w^ith, then to endure a clamouring debate of utterlefs-
things, in abufmefs ofthat civil fecrecyand difficult difcerning, as
not to be over much queftion'd by neareft friends.Whichdrew that
anfwer from the greateft and w^orthieft Roman of his time Faulm
tAlmtlms yhomg demanded why he would put away his Wife for no
vifible reafon, This Shoo (faid he, and held it out on his foot) is a-
Tie at JJjoo^ a new flioo^ and yet none of yon k^ow vchere it wrings me :
much lefs by the unfamiliar cognizance ofaFee'd Gamefter canfuch
a private difference be examined, neither ought it.

Again, if Law aim at the firm eflablifhment and prefervation of
matrimonial faith, we know that cannot thrive under violent means,
but is the more violated. Is it not w^hen two unfortunately met are.
by the Canon fo-rc'd to draw in that yoke an unmerciful days w^ork
of forrow till death unharnefs 'em, that then the Law keeps Marri-
age mofl unviolated and unbroken ? but when the Law takes order
that Marriage be accountant and refponfibk to perform that focie-
ty, whether it be religious, civiI,or corporal, which may be confcio-
nably requir'd and claim'd therein, or elfe to be difTolv'd if it can-
not be undergone. This is to make Marriage mofl indiflbluble, by-
making it a jufl and equnl dealer, a performer of thofe due helps
which inllituted the covenant, being otherwife a moft unjuft contradl,
and no more to be maintained under tuition of Law then the vileft-
fraud, or cheat,or theft,that may be committed. But becaufe this is
fuch a fecretkind of fraud or theft, as cannot be difcern'd by Law,
but onely by the Plaintiff himfelf^ therefore to divorce was never
counted a political or civil offence neither to Jew nor Gentile, nor
by any Judicial intendment of Ghrift,further then could be difcern'd
to tranfgrefs the allowance of Af^^y^^, which was of neceflity fo large^
that itdoth all one asifitfent back the matter undeterminable at

Law,

74 -^^^^ Do5trine mi. Difc inline (^/Divorce,

Law,and intractable by rough dealing, to have inftruftions and ad-
monitions beftowM about it by them whofe fpiritual office is to ad-
jure and to denouncejand fo left to the Confcience. The Law can on-
ly appoint the juft and equal conditions of Divorce, and is to look
how It is an injury to the Divorc'd, which in truth it can be none, as
a meer feparation j for if fhe confent, wherein has the Law to right
her ? or confent not^ then is it either jufl,and ^o defer ved *, or if un-
juft, fuch in all likelihood v/as the Divorcer, and to part from an un-
jufl: man is a happinefs, and no injury to be lamented. But fuppofe it
to be an injury, the Law is nos able to amend it, unlefs fhe think it
other then a miferable redrefs to return back from whence fhe was
expelled,orbut intreated to begone, or elfeto live apart flill marri-
ed without mar riage,a married widow. Lafl, ifitbe to chaflen the
divorcer, what Law puuifhes a deed whichis not moral but natural,
a deed which cannot certainly be found to be an injury ? or how
can it be punifh'd by prohibiting the Divorce,but that the innocent
muft equally partake both in the fhame and in the fmart ? So that
v.hich way foever we look the Law can to no rational purpofe for-
bid Divorce, it can onely take care that the conditions of Divorce
be not injurious. Thus then we fee the trial of Law how impertinent
it is to this queftion of Divorce, how helplefs next, and then how
hurtful.

CHAP. XXIL
The lafl Reafon why Divorce is not to be reflrained in LaWj it being
again fl the Law of Natnre and of Nations. The larger ^roofwhere^
of referred to Mr, SM^ns hockJDc Jure Naturali & Gentium.
^n Ob'jetihn o/Paraeus anfwered. Hovo it ought to be ordered by the
Church. That this will not bretdanywor fe inconvenience^ nor fo had
as IS. now Offered.

THerefore the laft Reafon why it fhould not be, is the example
we have,not only from the nobleft and wifeft Commonwealths,
guided by the cleareft light of humane knowIedge,but alfo from the
Divine Teftimonies of God himielf, lawgiving in perfon to a fant^i-
6ed people. That all this is true,whofo celires to know at large with
leafl pains, and expefts not over long reheaifals of that which is by
others already fo judicioufly gather' d, let himhaftento be acquaint-
ed with that nobk Volum written by our Learned Selden, Of the.
[^aw ofNatmre and Nations^ a Work more ufeful and more worthy
to be perus'dijwhjo foever fludies to be a great man in wifdom, equi
ly 5 and juif^icej then all thofc Decretals andSumlefs Sums^ which the

Von-

Refioid to the good of both Sexes. y j

l^ontifical Clerki have doted on, ever fmce that unfortunate Mother
fa m oufly finn'd thrice, and died impenitent of her bringing into the
world thoie two misbegotten Infants, and for ever Infants, Lombard
and Gratiariy him the compiler of Canon iniquity,t'other the TnhaU
r^/V? of Scholaftick Sophiftry, whofe overfpreading Barbarifm hath
not onely infus'd their own baftardy upon the fruitfulleft part of hu-
mane learning, not onely diflipated and dejefted the clear light of
Nature in us, and of Nations, but hath tainted alfo the fountains of
Divine Doftrine,and render'd the pure andfolid Law of God unbe-
neficial to us by their calumnious Dunceries. Yet this Law which
their unskilfulnefs hath made liable to all ignominy, the purity and
wifdom of this Law fhall be the buckler ofour difpute. Liberty of
Divorce we claim not,we think not but from this Law *, the dignity,,
the faith, the authority thereof is now grown among Chriftians, O
aftoni(hment! a labour of no mean difficulty and envy to defend.
That itfhould not be counted a faltring difpence, a flattering per-
mifTion or(in,the bill of adultery5a fnare,is the expence of all this A-
pology .And all that we folicit is, that it may be fuffered to ftand in.
the place where God fet it amidft the Firmament of his holy Laws to
fhine,as it was wont,upon the weaknefTes and errors of men periffi-
ing elie in the (incerity of their honed purpofes : for certain there is
no memory of whoredoms and adulteries left among us now, when
this warranted ireedom of Gods own giving is made dangerous and
difcarded for a fcrole oflicence.lt muft be your fufFrages and votes,
OEnglillimen, that this exploded Decree of God and A/b/^^ may
fcape and come off fair, without the cenfure of a fhameful abroga-
ting : which, if yonder Sun ride lure, and means not to break word
with us to morrow,was never yet abrogated by our Saviour. Give
fentence, if you pleafe, that the frivolous Canon may reverfe the in-
fallible judgment ofMofes and his great Dire£^or. Or if it be the
Reformed Writers,whofeDo(fl:rine perfuades this rather,their Rea-
ions I dare affirm are all filenc'd,un]efs it be only this. Parc^y^s on the
Cortmloians would prove that hardnefs of heart in Divorce is no
more now to be permitted, but to be amerc'dwith Fine and Impri-
fonraent. I am not willing to difc over the forgettings of Reverend
men, yet here I muft : What article or claufe of the whole new Co-
venantcanP^r^^ bring to exafperate the Judicial Law, upon any
infirmity under the Goipel ? (I fay infirmity, for if it were the high
hand of fin, the Law as little would liave endur'd it as the Gofpel) it
would notftretch to the dividing of an Inheritance 5 it refus'd to

con^

76 The Doctrine ami Difcipllne (?/Di voice,

condemn adultery ,not that thefe things fhould not be done at Law,
but to fhew that the Gofpel hath not the lead influence upon Judi-
cial CourtSjipuch lefs to make them (harper and more heavy ,leail of
ail to arraign before a Temporal Judge that v\ hich the Law without
Summons acquitted. But (faith he) the Law was the time of Youth,
under violent affetlions, the Gofpel in us is mature age, and ought
to fubdue affections. True, and fo ought the Law^ too, if they be
found inordinate^and not meerly natural and blamelefs. Next I di-
ftinguifh that th^ time of the Law is compar'd to Youth and Pupil-
lage in refpeft of the Ceremonial part, which led the jew-s as chil-
dren through corporal and gariih rudiments, untill the Fulnefs of
time fhould reveal to them the higher leffons of Faith and Redem-
ption. This is not meant of the Moral part, therein it foberly con-
cern'd them not to be Babies,but to be Men in good earnell : the fad
and aw^fulMajefty of that Law was not to be jelled wdth : to bring a
bearded Nonage w^ith lafcivious pifpenfations before that Throne,
had been a lewd affront , as it is now a grofs miftake. But what Difci-
piine is this^Par^m^to nourifli violent aflPeL^ions in Youth,by cocker-
ing and wanton Indulgences,and to chaftife them in mature age with
a boyifh rod of correQion ? How much more coherent is it to Scri-
pture, that the Law as a ftrift Schoolmafter fhould have puniih'd
every trefpafs without indulgence fo baneful to Youth, and that the
Gofpel fhould now corred that by admonition and reproof onely,
in free and mature age, which was punifh'd with flripes in the child-
hood and bondage of the Law. What therefore it allow'd then fo
fairly, much lefs is to be whipp'd now, efpecially in Penal Courts ;
and if it ought now to trouble the Confcience, why did that angry
accufer and condemner Law reprieve it ? So then,neither from Mo-
fes nor from Chrifi: hath the Magiftrate any authority to proceed
againft itBut what,fhall then the difpofal of that powder return again
to the Mafler of a Family ? Wherefore not, fmce God there put it,
and the prefumptuous Canon thence bereft it ? This onely rauft be
provided,that the ancient manner be obferv'd in prefence of the Mi-
nifter and other grave feleded Elders, w'ho after they fliall have ad-
uionifh'd and prefs'd upon him the words of our Saviour, and he
fhall have proteiled in the Faith of the eternal Gofpel, and the hope
he has of happy Refurre(^ion,that otherwife then thus he cannot do,
and thinks himfelf and this his cafe not contain'd in that Prohibition
©Divorce which Chrift pronounc'd, the matter not being of malice,
but of nature;ajid fo not capable of reconciling, to conftrain him fur-
ther

Reflor'*d to the good of both Sexes, "^jj

ther were to unchriften him, to unman him, to throw the mountain
of Sinai upon him, with the weight of the whole Law to boot, flat
againft the liberty and eflence of the Gofpeljand yet nothing availa-
ble either to the lkn6^ity of marriage, the good of husband, wife, or
chiIdren,nothing profitable either to Church orCommonwealth,but
hurtful and pernicious to all thefe refpedls. But this will bring in
confufion : yet thefc cautious miftruders might confider, that what
they thus obje<ft lights notupon this book, but upon that which I
engage againft them,the Book of God and Mofcs^Wwh. all the wifdom
and providence which had forecaft the worft of confufion that could
could fucceedjand yet thought fit offuch a permilTion. But let them
be of good cheer,lt wrought fo little diforder among the Jews^ that
from MofestiW after the Captivity not one of the Prophets thought
it worth the rebuking ; for that of Mdachy well look'd into will ap-
pear to be not againft Divorcing, but rather againft keeping ftrange
Concubines,to the vexation of their Hebrew Wives. Iftherefore v^e
Chriftians may be thought as good and tra^Tbable as the J^uo-were,
' and certainly the Prohibiters of Divorce prefume us to be better,
then lefs Confufion is to be feard for this among us then was among
them. If we be worre,or but asbad,which lamentable examples con-
firm we are,thcn have we more, or at leaft as much, need of this
permitted Law^as they to whom God therefore gave it (as they fay)
under a harfher Covenant. Let not therefore the frailty of man go
on thus inventing needlefs troubles to it felf, to groan under the faile
imagination of a ftri£lnefs never imposM from above •, enjoyning that
for duty which is an impofiible and vain fupererogating. Be not righ-
teom overmuch y\^ the counfel o^ Ecclefiafles •, vohy (honldflthondeflrcy
thy felf? Letusnotbe thus over curious to ftrain at atoms, and yet
to ftop every vent and cranny of pcrmifiive liberty, left Nature want-
ing thofe needful pores and breathing places which God hath not
debarr'd our w^eaknefs, either fuddenly break out into fome w^ide
rupture of open vice and frantick hcrefie,or elfe inwardly fefter with
repining and blafphemous thoughts,under an unreafonable and fruit-
lefs rigor of unwarranted Law. Againft which evils nothing can more
bcfeem the Religion of theChurch,or the Wifdom of the State, then
to confider timely and provide. And in fo doing let them not doubt
but they fhall vindicate the mifreputedHonour of God and his great
Lawgiver, by fuffering him to give his own Laws according to the
condition of Mans nature beft known to him, without the uniufFera-
ble imputation of difpenfing legally with many Ages of ratifiedAdul-

M tery.

^^ The Docirine mdDifci^line t?/ Divorce,

tery. They fliall recpyer the mifattended words of Chrift to the fin-
cerity of their true fen fe from manifold, contradiftions/ and fhall
open them with the Keyof Charity. Many helplefs Chriftians they
ihaii raife from the depth of fadnefs and diftrefs; utterly unfitted as
they are to ferve God or Man : many they fhall reclaim from obfcure
and giddy Seds,many regain from diffolute and brutilli Licence,ma-
ny from defperate hardnefs if ever that were juftly pleaded. They
fhall fet'free many Daughters oUfraely not wanting much of her fad
plig'n Y^hom Satan had homd eighteen years. Man they fhall refto re
to his jufl Dignity and Prerogative in Nature, preferring the Souls
free peace before the promifcuous draining of a carnal rage. Marri-
age from a perillous hazard and fnare,they fhall reduce to be a more
certain haven and retirement of happy fociety *, when they Hi a I
judge according to God and Mofes ^ and how not then according to
Chrift ? when they fhall judge it more wifdom and goodnefs to break
that Covenant feemingly and keep it really ^ then compuliion of Law
to keep it feemingly, and by compulSon of blamelefs Nature to
break it really^at leaftifit were ever truly joynM. The vigor of Di-
fcipline they may then turn with better fuccefs upon rhe proftitute
loofnefs of the times, when men finding in themfelves the infirmities
of former Ages, fhall not be conflrain'd above the gift of God in
them^ to unprofitable and impoflible Obfervances never required
from the civilleft, the wifeft, the holieft Nations, whofe other excel-
lencies in moral vertue they never yet could equal. Laft of all, to
thole whofe mind is flill to maintain textual reftri6lion, whereof the
bare found cannot confifl fometimes w^ith Humanity, much lefs with
Charity, I would ever anfwer by putting them in remembrance of a
command above all commands, which they feem to have forgot, and
whofpake it*, in comparifon whereof this which they fo exalt, is
but a petty and fubordinate precept. Let them go therefore with
whom I am loth to couple them,yet they will needs run into the fame
blindnefs with the Pharifees *, let them go therefore and confider well
what this leffbn means,/ will have mercy and notfacrtfice ; for on that
faying all the Law and Prophets defend^much more the Gofpel,whofe
end and excellence is mercy and peace : or if they cannot learn that,
how will they hear this ? which yet I fhall not doubt to leave with
them as a Conclufion, That God the Son hath put all other things un-
der his own feet, bnt his Commandments he hath left all under the
feet ofCharityo

€QLASTE%IO ^.

REPLY TO

A

N AMELES ANSWER

AGAINST

Tht *DoBrm and *Dtfciphne ofDmrce,

WHEREIN

ThetriYial Author of that Anfwerisdifco-

Vtfr'd, the Liecocer confctr'd with, an^ the
Opinion which they traduce defended.

By the fofmet Author, % M,

Prov. 2#. 5.

Atfmtr sFHtMmdin^ U hkfiSj^ kft bu htt wife inhk
tmn (tnetit.

Printed, in the Tear, 1^4.5.

»^

r^.hhi /msY 3fb m .b^inh*'

COLASTERION:

A
Reply to a naoielefs Anfwcr againil the

Do^lrine and Difciplwe of Dhorce,

AP T E R many rumors of confatations and convid^rons forth
comming againft Ti^^e 'DoElrine and Difcif line of 'Divorce^ and
Dov/andtben a by-blow from the Pulpit, featherd with a
cenfore ftviA indccd,but how true,more beholding to theau-
tority of that devout place which it borrowd to bee utterd in, then to
any found rcafon which it could oracle, while I ftill hop'd as for a
blefling to fee fom pcece of diligence, or lerned difcrction come
from them, it was my hap at length lighting on a certain parcel of
^<triesy thatfeckand findcnot, tofindcnot fecking, atthetailcof
tAnahaptifiica/^ Antlncmian^ Heretical^ ^theiftical epithets, a jolly
([mdcry c^iVd 'Divorce ar piesfure : I ftood a while and wonder'd,
what wee might doe to a mans heart, or what anatomic ufe, to finde
in it fincerity ; for all our wonted marks every day fail us, and where
wee thought it was, wee fee it is not,for alter and change refidence
it cannot Sire. And yet I (ce no good of body orofmindcfecuretot
man for all his paft labours without perpetual watchfulnes, and per-
feverance. When as one above others who hath fufFer'd much and
long in the defence of Truth, fhall after all this, give her caufeto
leavhimfo deftitute and fo vacant of her defence, as toycild his
mouth to bee the common road of Truth and Falshood, and fuch falf-
hoodasis ;oyn*d with the rafh and hcedlcs calumny of his neigh-
bour. Tor what book hath hee ever met with, as his complaint if.
Printed in the OV/.roaintaininf either in the title, or in the whole per-
fuance, 'Divorce at piea/ftre ^ Tistruc, that to divorce upon cjctrcmc
neceffity, when thtuugh the pervcrfnes, or the apparent unfitnes of
either, the continuance can bee to both no good atall, butaninto-

B lerabU

^ COL AS T E R 10 N.

krable injury and temptation to the wronged and the defrauded, t©
divorce then, there is a book that writes it la wf ull. Mid that this Law
is a pure and wholfom national Law, not to be with-held from good
men, bccaufe others likely anough may abufe it to thir pleafure, can
not bee charg'd upon that book, but muk bee enterd a bold and
impiousaccufationagainftGodhimfcif; who did not for this abufe
withhold it from his own people. It will bee juft therfore,and bed
for the reputation of him who in his Subitanes hath thus cenfur'd,
to recall his fentence. And if, out of the abundance of his Volumes,
and the readinefs of his quill, and the vaftnefs of his other imploi-
ments, elpecially in the great audit for accounts, hee can fpareus
ought to the better undeiftanding of this point, hee {hall bee thankt
in public, and what hath oflFended in the book, (hall willmgly fub-
mitt to his corredion. Provided he bee fure not to come with thofc
old and fiale fuppofitions , unlefs hee can take away clcerly what that
difcours hath urgM againft them, by one who will exped other argu-
ments to bee perlwaded the good health of a found anfwer, then the
gout and droply of a big margent, litter'd and overlaid with crude
and huddl'd quotations. But as 1 (lill was waiting, when thefe light
arm'd refuters would have don pelting at thir three lines utterd with
a (age delivery of no reafon, but an impotent and wors then *S^»«tfr-
like cenfure to burn that which provokes them to a fair difpute, at
length a book was brought to my hands, entitl'd (tAn Anfvcer to the
^DoElrine and Tfifcifllne ofTfivorce, Gladly I receiv'd it, and very at-
tentively composM my ielf to read ; hoping that now fom good man
had voutfaft the pains (o inftruftmec better, then I could yet learn
©ut of all the volunies which for tliis purpos 1 had vifited. Only this I
marverd, and other men have (ince, when asl,ina Subjedfonev/
to this age, and (o hazardous to pieale, conceal'd not my name, why
this Author defending that part which is fo cr eeded by the people.
Would conceal bis ? But ere 1 cculd enter three leaves into the Pam-
fiet, (fori dcferr the peafantly rndenes,whichby the Licencers leaVj
Imet with afterwards j my fit^isfadion came in abundantly, that it
could bee nochinr; why hee duHl nor namehimfelf, but the guilt of
his pwn wretchednes. For fii ft, t)ot to (peak of his abrupt and bald
bcginmnf, his i^cry. firft page .notorioufly bewraies him an illiterate
and arrrg^ntpre'umei: in that which hee under ftands not ; bearing
as in hand a^i^ hee knew both Greek and Ebrewj and is not able to

fpell

CO L\^ S TE R 1 ON. I

fpell it ; which had hee bin, it had bin either writt'n as it ought, or
fcor'd upon the Printer. 1 fit bccexcus'd as the carelefnes of his de-
puty, bee it known, the lerned Author himfelf is inventoried, and
fumm'dup, totheut moll value of his Livery cloak. Whoever hee
bee, though thistofomir.ay (etma flight conteO:, KhM yet conti-
nue to cbink that man full of other fccrer ifjufticc, and deceitfali
pridr, who Ihallofier in public to alTume the skill, though it bee but
of a tongue which hee hath not, and would catch his readers to be-
ieevc of his ability, that which is not in him. The Licencer indeed,
as hisau^oiify now ttands, may licence much; but if thefe Greek
Orthoarapkies were of bis licencing ; the boyes at School might reckon
with him at his Grammar. Nor did Ifindcthishis want oi* the pre-
tended Languages alone, but accompanied with fucha low and
homc-fpun exprcflion of his Mother EngliJJj all along, without joynt
or frame, as made mee, ere I knew furder of him,often ftop,and con-
clude, that this Author could for certain bee no other then fom me-
chanic. Nor was the Itile flat and rude, and the matter grave and fo-
lid, for then ther had bin pardon, but fo fliallow and fo unwary was
thatalfo, as gave fafficiently the charaiflerof a grofs and fluggifli,
yet a contentious and overweening pretender. For ^^{k, it be-
hooving him to fliew, as hee promifes, what divorce is, and what
the truedodrine and Difcipline therof,and this beeing to doc by fuch
principks and prooffs as are reccav'd on both fides, hee performes
neither of thefe ; but flicws it firft from the jHclaical praftice, which
hee himlelf difallows, and next from the pradice of Canon Law,
which the Book hee would confute, utterly rejeds, and all Laws
depending theron ; which this puny Clark calls The Laws of England,
and yet pronounces them hy an Eccle^aftical judge : as if that were to
bee accounted the Law of England^ which depended on the Popery
of England'^ orif it were, this Parlament hee might knowli<^hriow
damn*d that judicature. So that whether his meaning were to infbttn
bis own party, or to confute his adverfary, inftead of Chewhig os the
true Dodrin and Difcipline of Divorce, hee fliews us nothing but
his own contemptible ignorance. Por what is the Mofaic Law to
his opinion, and What is the Canon utterly now antiquated, eiiber to
that or to mint ? Yee fee already what a faithfull disfiher W^e' tiiTe
hiKi. from fuch a wind egg of definition astbis, thej^ who exped

any of his other arguments to bee well hatchtj-kr them copy the

B 2 - ^ ^^^^^

4 C 0 LAST E RIO N.

vertH of thir worthy Champion. But one thing more I obfcrvd, a
lingular note of Us ftupiclity,and that his Trade is not to meddle with
Books, nuichlefs with Confutations. When as the DoCiHn of*T}i'
vorce had now a whole year bin publiQit the fecond time, with many
Arguments added, and ihe former ones better'dand confirmed, this
idle pamflct comes reeling forth agaioft the firfl: Edition only ; as may
appear to any by the pages quoted. Which pat me in minde of what
by chance 1 bad notice of to this purpos the iaft Summer, as nothing
fo fcnousj but happns oft times to bee attended with a ridiculous ac-
cident, i^ was then told meeih^t the DoHrin of divorce wasanfwerd
and the anfwer half Printed againft the firft Edition ; not by one, but
by a pack of heads ; of whom the cheif, bycircumfl:ance,wa5 indma-
tedtomee, andfince ratified to bee no other, if any can hold laugh-
ter, and I am furc none will guefs him lower,then an adual Servings
man. Tliis creature, for the Story mud on, (and what though bee
bee the lowcfl perlon of an interlude, hee may deferv a canvaling,)
tranfplantcd himfelf, and to the improvment of his wages, and youc
better notice of his capadty, iund Solliciter* And^'having con-
versed much with a ftripling Divine or two of thoic newly 'fledge
!Pr<>^4fi«»fr/, that ulually come fcouiing from the Univerfity, and ly
beer no lame lexers to popinto the 'Bethefdaoiiom Knights Chaplain-
iliip, where they bring grace to his good cheer, but no peace or bc-
nedidion els to his houfe; thcfemade the Cbampany , hee contri-
buted the Law, and both joynd ill the Divinity. Which m.ade mee
intend, following the advice alfo of freinds, to lay afide the thought
of mif-fpending a Reply to the buzze of foch a Drones neft. Eut find-
ing that it lay,, whatever was the matter, half a year after unfiniQit
inthcprefs, and hearing for certain that a Divine of note, out of his
good wiU to the opinion, had taknit into his revife, and fomthing
had put cut, fomthing put In, and ftuck it heer and there with a clove
oi his ovfnCa/it^raphj, to keep it from tainting, and furderwhenl
faw the Ruff, though very cours and thred-bare, garnifht and trimly
iac't with the commendations of a Liccncer, I refolv'd, fo foon, as
Jeifurcgrantedmee the recreation, that my man of Lawihould not
altogether loofc his foll'citing. Although I impute a (hare of, the
»tking to him whofe name I find in the approbation, who may take>
as Us mind feivs him. thi$ Reply. In the mean while it (ball bee
fecn, iKfulcno ocfafion, and avgidnoadverfary, either to main.

tane

COLASTERION' 5

tane what I bave began, or to give it up for better reafon*

To begin then with the Licencer and his cenfUrc. For a Licencer
is not contented now to give his fingle Imprimatur^ but brings his
chair into the Title leaf ; there (its and judges up or judges down what
book hee pleafes ; if this bee (ufFcr'd, what worthies Author,or what
cunning Printer will not bee ambit ioas of fuch a Stale to put ofFthc
heavieft gear ; which may in time bring in round fees to the Licen-
cer, and wretched mifleading to the People. But to the matter ; he
approves the fublijhing of thU Boof^^ to priferv ths firength and hortcur
of Mariagi againfi thofe fad bre^shes and dangirom ahufes of i r. B elike
then the vvrongfull fufiering of all thofe iad breaches and abafes in
Mariagc to a rcmedilcfs thraldomjis the flrength and honot^r of Mariagei
aboiftrousandbtftial ftrcngtb> .a dif-honourable honour, an infatu-
ated Dcdrine. wors then they^/i/9 jure of tyrannizing, which wee
all fight againft. Next hee fai:h that common cUfcontents make thefe
breaches in unfiaid mlndes, and men givn to change. His words may be
apprehended, asif they difallow'd only to divorce iot common difccn-
tents in tdnfiaidmindes, having no caufe,but a dejire ofchange^ and then
wee agree. But if hee take all difcontents on thufiae adulter j ^\o bee
common, that is to fay, not difficult to endure, and to affedl only ^«-
fiaidmindes, it might adminifter juft caufe to think him the unfitted
man that could bee, to offer at a comment upon Job ; as fecming :y .
thistohave nomcre trKcfenfcofagood manin hisafHidlons, then
thoie Edo?9^itifi Freinds had, of whom fob complain?, and againft
whom God teftifies his anger. Shall a man of your own coat, who
hath efpous'd his flock ; and reprefents Chrift/more, in beeing the true
hulbandof his Congregation, then an ordnary a^an dothin beeing
the hulband of his wife, and yet this rcprefentment is thought a cheif
caufe why Mariage mull bee infeparabic, (T^all this fpiritual man ord-
narily for the increaie of his maintenance, or any flight caufe forfake
that wedded cure of fouls, that fhould bee deareft to him, and marry
another, and another, andiliallnota perfon wrongfully afflided,
and persecuted eevn to extremity, forfake an unfit, injurious, and
peftilent mate, ty'd only by a civil and fleflily covnant .^ If yoa bee
a man fo much hating change, hate that other change ; if yourfelf
bee not guilty, counfel your brethren to hate it ; and leav to bee
the fupercilious judge of other mens miferies and changes, that your
own bee not judg'd. The rcafons of y ©ur iicen't pamflet , you fay

B 3 arf

d COL A sTB(^ion.

are good; they moft bee better then your own then, I {hall wonder
els hov/fuch a trivial fellow was accepted and conamefided, to bee
r)^^ confuter of fo dangerous *i' opinion as yee give out mine.

t^o V therforc to your ^iAnurnef, fince no worthier an adverfary
1113 kcs big appearance, nor thisntr>her his appearance, but lurking
under the fafety of his namelcs oblcurity ; fuch as yec turn him forth
ai-the Poftern, I muft accept him ; and in a better temper then z^-
jrfA:, doe mean to fcourge this Ramme for yee, till I meet with his V^

Hee begins with Law, and wee have it of him a s good cheap, as a-
ny hucller at Liw, newly fet up, canpoffioly affjrd, ani a? imper-
tinent ; but for that hee hath received hishanfel. HeeprcfuTies ai(o
to cite the Civil Law, which, I pcrceav by his citing never caaie
within his dormlpory , yet what hee cites makes but agauill him-
felf.

His fecond thing therfore is t© refute the ad vers po(ition,and very
methodically, three pages before hee fets it down; aadfetshis own
in the place, that difagreement of mindc or difpojition, though Jherving
it felf in much Jharfnes is not hy the Larv of God, or m^n, a jufi can/e of
divorce.

To this pofition I anfwer, that it lays no battery againft mine,no,
nor fo much as faces it, but tacks about, long ere it come neer, like
aharmles and refpedfull confutement. Tor I confefs that difagree-
ment ©fminde or difpofition,though in much{harpneF,is notalwaies
a juft caufe of divorce ; for much may bee endut'd. But what if the
iTiarpnes bee much more then his much? To that point it is our
mif-hap wee have notheer his grave decifion. Hee that will con-
tradid the positive which I alleged, mnft hold that no difagreement
of minde, or difpofition, can divorce, though fhewn in mod (harp-
nes ; otherwife hee leaves a place for equity to appoint limits, and fo
his following arguments will either not prove to own pofition, or
not difprove mine.

His firtl Argument, all but what hobbles to no purpos is this^Wher
the ScrtptMre comfHands a thhgtohee d^ffy it apfointswhen^ how ^ and for
what, as in. tire cafe of death &r exfommttmcation. But the Script ftre
direH^s not what meafure of difagreement or contrariety may divorce ;
Therfor'ej'the Scripture allows not any divorce for difagreement^

jinfrper'ViiH I deny your ws?^i^r,thc Scripture appoints many things,
^ and

C 0 L A STERl ON. 7

and yet leaves the circumftance to mans difcretiorrj particularly, in
your own examples; Excomoiufjicaiion is nottauaht when, and
for what to bee, but left to the Church. How co :ld the Licences
let pais this childifh ignorance and callit good. N;xt, in matter of
death, the Laws of England, wherof you have intruded to bee an
opiniaftrous Suh advocate, and are bound to defend them, conceave
it not enjoyn'd in Scripture, when or for what cau(e they Ihall put to
death, asm adultery, theft, and the like; your w/»<?r aUo is fals, for
the Scripture plainly fets down for what meafure of dlfagreement a
man may divorce, *P<f/^/. 24. i. learn better what that phrafe means,
ifjheefinde no favour in his eyes.

Your fecond Argument, without more tedious fumbHng is breifly
thus. If diverfitj in Religion, "^'hich breeds a greater dijli^e then any na-
tural dif agreement may not caufe a divorce, then may not the leffer difa^ree'
ment : bnt diver jity of Religion may not*^Ergo» "*

zy^nfwer, Firft, I deny in the majory that diverfity of Religion,
breeds a greater diflike to mariage duties, then natural difagreement.
Tor between Ifraelite , or Chtifltian and Infidel more often hath bin
fecntoo much love : but between them who perpetually clafli in na-
tural contrarieties, it is repugnant that t her Qiould bee ever any ma-
ricd love or concord. Next, I deny your minor, that it is comman-
ded Rot to divorce in diverfity of Religion, if the Infidel willftay i
for that place in St. Taul, commands nothing, as that book, at large
affirm'd, though you over-skipt it.

Secondly, if it doc command, it is but with condition, thatthe
Infidel bee content, and well pleased to ftay, which cuts off the fup,.
pofalof any great hatred or difquiet between them; feeing the In-
fidel had liberty to depart at pleafure ; and fo this comparifon avails
nothing.

Your third Argument is from Deut. 22. If d man hate his wife, and
raife aniHre^ort^ that hee found her no virgin, li this VfCVQ his, he mighf
not put her away ^though hated never fo much.

Anfi^er, This was a malicious hatred bentagainft her life, or to
fend her out of dores without her portion. Such a hater loofes by
due punifliment that privilege, Deut. 24. x. to divorce for a natu-
ral diflikc, which though it could not love conjugally, yet fent away
civilly, and with juft conditions. But doubtles tbe Wife in that for-
mer cafe had liberty to depart from her fals acculcr, kft his hatred

rhould

8 CO L AS tER I ON.

(hould prove mortal ; els that Law peculiarly made to right the wo-
man, had turn'd to her grcateft mifcheif ,

Your fourth Argument, Oxe ChrifiUn ought to bear the infirmities of
another, hut chfifij of hU Wife,

Answer, I grant, infirmities, but not outrages, not perpetual de-
fraudmentsoftrueft conjugal fociety, not injuries and vexations as
imponunat as fire. Yet to endure very much, might doe well an ex-
hortation, lutnota compulfive Law. Tor the Spirit ot God him-
Mfby Solomon declares that fuch a conforc the earth cannot hear ^ and
better dwell in a corner on the houfe top, or in the P^ildernes, Burdens
may bee born, but Hill with confideration to the ftrength of an ho-
neft man complaining* Charity indeed bids us forgive our enemies,
yet doth not force us to continue frdndftiipsnd familiarity with
tho(c frcinds who have bin fals or unworthy toward us ; but is con-
tented in our peace with them, at a fair diftance. Charity commands
not the husband to receav again into his bofom the adulterous Wife,
but thinks it anough, if hee difmifs her with a beneficent and peace-
full difmidion. No more doth Charity command, nor can her rule
compcll,to retain in nccreft union of wedloc, one whofe other grof-
feft faults, or didibilitics to perform what was covnantcd, arc the )uft
caufes of as much grccvance and diflention in a Family, as the pri-
vate aft of adulteiy. Let not thcifore under the name of fulfilling
Charity,fuch an unmerciful), and more then legal yoke, bee padlockt
upon the neck of any Chriftian.

Your fifch Argument, Jf tke hushandought love his wlfcy as Chrifi
his Churchy then ought Jhee not to hte fHt away for contraritty of
minde*

t^nfwer, Thisfimiiitude turnes againfl him. For if the husband
muft beeasChrift totlit'Wite, then iduQ; the wife bee as the Church
to her husband. It thcr bee a perpetU3l contrariety of minde in the
Church toward Chrift, Chrift riimfeltc threatens to divorce fuch a
Spoufe,and aath often don it. If they urge,this was no true Church,
1 urse again,tbat was no true Wife.

His fixth Argument is frc m the 5 of Matthew 32. which hee ex-
pounds after the old fa{hion,5nd never takes notice of what I brought
againft that expofiiion ; Let him therfere feek his anfwer there. Yet
can hee notle.^v this Argument, but hee muft needs firft (hew usa
cnrveit of his msdnes, holding out an objedion, and running him-

fclf

COL AST E RIO N. p

fclf upon the point. Fer^ faith hee, if Chrtfl except no eanfe hut adtii-
terjy thtn dU other caufes as frigidity, incefinoHs mariage^ c^c, are no
CMHfes ofdivorcf; and anfwers that the fpcech of Chrifi holds tiniverfallj ^
Mi hee intended it namdy to condemn fuch divorce^ as was groundlejly prar
Eii:c'd among the Jews, for everjcaufevrhich they thought: ftijficie^it ; not
checkifjgthe law of confangmnities or affinities, or forbidding ether caufe
which moik^smariagevoid, IpfofaEho^

Anfw, Look to it now you be not found taking fees on both (ides,
for if you once bring limitations to the univerial words of Chrifljan-
Gtier will dee as much with as good autority, and affirm, that nei-
ther did hee check the Law Deut. 24. i. nor forbrd the caufesthat
niakemariage void adually ; which if any thing in the world doth,
unfitncsdoth, and contrariety of minde ; yea,morc then adLiItery,for
that makes not the mariage void, nor much more unfit, but for the
time, if the offended party forgive ; but unfitnes and contrariety fru-
ftratcs and nullifies for ever, unlefs it bee a rare chance, all the good
and peace of wedded converfation ; and leaves nothing between
them enjoyable, but a prone and favage neceility, not worth the
name of mariage,anaccompanied with love. Thus much his own
ebjedion barb don againd himielf.

^rgu,']. Hee infills, that man and wife are oyieflefh, therforemu^
not ftparat. But muft bee fent to look again upon the 3 5 . pag. of that
book, where bee might have re-ad an anfwer, which hee itirrs not.
Yet can hee not abftain, but hee muft doe us another pleafure ere hee
goes; Ahhough 1 call the Common Pleas to witnefs, I have not
hir'd his tongue, whatever men may think by his arguing. For be-'
fides adultery, hee excepts other caufes which diffolv the union of beeing
eneflefb^ either direHlj, or by eonjcqmnce. If only adultery bee excep-
ted by our Savioar, and hee voluntarily can adde other cxcepri ns
that diffolv that union ^<?r^ ifcVf^// 4w^ ^7 confequence^ thefe words of
Chrift, the main obftacle of divorce, are open to us by his own invi-
tation to include whatever caufesdiflolv that union of &.(h, either di"
reRly or by conftquence. Which, till hee name other caules more like-
ly, I affirm to bee don fooneft by unfitnefs and contrariety of minde*
For that induces hatred, which is the greateft diftolver, both of
i^irirual and corporal union , turning the minde and confequent-
ly tlw body to ether objcds. Thus our doobty adverfary, eitJ^tr
dirtily ^ §r by confequence yeilds us the queftioD with his owii mouth,

C and

xo colasterion.

and the next thing hec does, recants it again.

His eighth Argument {hivers in the uttering, and hce confefles to
he not over csrtfident of it, but of the reft it may bee fworn hec is. St.
^aul, I C^r.j. faith, that the married havetrouhltinthe pfi, thcr-
fbre wee muft bear it, though never fo intolerable.

I Anfwer, if this bee a true confequence, why are not all troubles
to beebcrn alike? why are wee fuffer'd to divorce adulteries; de-
fertions, or frigidities ? Who knows not that trouble and afBidion
is the decree of God upon every ftate of life? follows ittherfore,
that though they grow txceflive, and infupportable, wee muft not
avoid ihem? if wee may in all other conditions, and notinmari-
age, the doom of our (ufering ties us not by the trouble, but by the
bondofmariage; and that muft bee proved inseparable from other
reafons, not from this place. And his own confeffion declares the
weaknes of this Argument, yet his ungovern'd arrogance could not
bee diffwaded from venting it.

His ninth Argument is, That a husband muft love hi6 wife as himfelK
therfore hee may mt divorce for anj dif agreement, no more then hee may ft'
farat his foul from his body,

I Anfwer, if hee love his wife as himfelf,hee muft love her fo farre
asheemayprefervhimftlfto her in a cherfuU andcomfortablc man-
ner, and not fo as to ruin himlclf by anguifh and forrow, without a-
ny benefit to her. Next, if the husband muft love his wife as himfelf ,
fliec muft bee underftood a wife in fom reafonable meafure, willing^
and fufficicnt to perform the cheif duties of her Covnant, els by the
hold of this argument, it Wou.d bee his great fin to divorce either for
adultery, or defcrtion. The reft of this will run circuit with the uni-
on of one flefh, which was anfwer'd before. And that to divorce
a relative and OHetaphorical union of two bodies into one flefh
cannot bee likn'd in all thingsto thedividing ofthat natural union
of foul and body into one petlon, is apparent of it fclF.

Hislaft Argument hec fetches from the inconveniences that r^onld
fdllorpupon thu freedom of £v^rce, to ^he corrupting of mens rnhdes^ and
the overturning of all human focietj.

But for mee, let God and Mofes anfwer this blafphemer,who dares

bring in fuch a foul endightment againft the divine Law. Why did

God permit this to his people the jewes, but that the right and good

'Which came direaiy thtrby,^ was mor« m his caeem,tbcn the wrong

and

COLASTERION. ii

and evil which came by accident. And for thofe weakluppofes of In-
fants that would be left in their mothers belly^ C which muft needs bee
good news tor Cbamber-maids,to hear a Serving- man grown (o pro-
vident for great bellies; and portions, and joyntures likely to in -
currinibtzltment heerby,the ancient civil Lawinftrudsus plentifal-
ly how to award, which our profound oppolite kn^w not, for it was
not in his Tenures.

HisArguniei ts arefpun, now follows t^.e Chaplain with his An-
tiquities, v/ifer if hec had refrain'd, for his very touching ought that
islerned, foiles it, and lays bim ft ill marc and more open a confpicu-
ous gull. There beeing both Fathers and Councils more ancient,
wherwith to have ferv'd his purpos better then with what hee cites,
how may we doe to know the (uttlc drift that mov'd him to begin firft
with the twelfth QoHncel of Toledo ? I would not undervalue the depth
of his notion,but perhaps he had heard that the men oiToledo had ftore
of good blade-mettle, and were excellent at cuttling ; who can tell
but it might bee the reach of his policy, that thcfe able nnen of deci-
fion, would doe beft to have the prime (Iroke among his tcftimonies
in deciding this caufe. But all this craft avails him not ; for feeing
they allow no caufe of divorce but fornication, what doc thefe keen
Dodors heer but cut him over the finews with thir Toledo*s, for
holding in the precedent page other caufcs of divorce befides, both
direUljy andby confeqmnce. As evil doth that ^<«Ar#w Councel, next
quoted, beftead him. For if it allow divorce preciiely for no caufe
but fornication, it thwarts his own Expofition : and if it undcrftand
fornication largely, it fides with whom hee would confute. How-
ever the autority of that Synod can bee but teall, beeing under Theo'>
dorus, the Center bnry Bi(hop J a Grecian Monk of TArfus, revolted
firom his own Church to the Pope. What have wee next ? The Ci-
vil Law ftufft in between two Councels, as if the Code had bin fom
Synod; for that hee underftood himfclf inthis quotation is incredi-
ble; where the Law, ^od,L^, m. 38. /tf^.ii.lpeaks not of divorce,
butagainft the dividing of poffcflions to divers heires, whcrby the
maried fervantsof a great family were divided perhaps into diftant
Countries, and Colonics, Father from Son,Wife from Husband,rore
igainfl thir will. Somwhat lower hee confcfles, that tkt CMllLaw
tUows many rtafons of divorce^ but the Cannon Law decrees other wife.
A fair credit to his Caufe ; and I amaze me, though the fancy of this

C 2 dpplt

12, C0LASTER1ON.

dealt bee as obtufe and fad as any mallet, bo(V the Licencer could
deep out all this, and futfer him to uphold his opinion, by Canons,lc
Gregorian decretals, z Law which not only his ad verfary , but the whole
reformation oftbis Church and ftate hath branded and rejefted. As
ignorantiy, and too ignorantly to deceav any Reader but anunlern-
ed, hee talks of Juftin Martyrs Apology, not telling us which of the
twain; forthatpaffagein the beginning of his firft, which I hate
cited els- where, plainly makes againft him s So dothTertuUian, ci-
ted next, and next Erafmns^ the one againft t^arcion^ the other in
his Annotations on Matthew^ and to the Corinthians. And thus yee
ha^e the Lift of his choice Antiquities, as pleafantly chofen as yee
would wifh from a man of his handy Vocation, puft up with no luck
at all, above the ftint of his capacity.

Now hee comes to the Pofition, which I (ett down whole ; and
Tike an able text man flits it into fowr, that hee may the better come
at it with his Barbar Surgery, and his fleevs tum'd up. Whcrin firft
hee denies that any fUffefitioni unfitnefs, or contrariety of mind€ is uh*
changeable in nature, bnt thathj the help of diet and fhyficit may he alter* d,

I mean not to difpute Philofophy with this Pork, who neverresd
any, But I appeal to all experience, though there bee many drugs to
purge thofc redundant humors, and circulations that commonly im-
pair health, and are not natural, whether any man can with the fafc-
ty of his life bring a healthy conftitution imo phyfic with this de-
figne, to alter his natural temperament, ana difpolition ©f mmde.
How much more vain, and ridiculous would it bee,, by altering and
rooting up the grounds of nature, virhich ismoft likely to produce
death or msdnes, to hope tht reducing of a minde to this or that fit-
nes, or two difagreeing mindes to a mutual fympathy. Suppofe they
might, and that with great danger of thir lives and tight fcnfcs, alter
ene temperature, how can they know that the fucceeding difpofiti-
on will not bee as farre from fitnes and agreement ? They would per-
haps change Melancholy mto Sanguin, but what if fleam, and cho-
ler in as great a meafnre come inftead, the unfitnes will be ttill as dif-
ficult and troublefom. Butla^ly, whether thefe things bee change-
able, or not, experience teachcth us,aiad our Pofition fuppofes that
they feldom doe change in any time commenfurable to the ncceffi-
ties of man, or convenient to the ends of mariage, Apd if the fault
bee in the one) (hall the other live all his daies in bondage an^niifery

for

C 0 LA STERt ON. ij

for anotherspervcrfnes, or immedicable difaffcdion? To my frcindsi
of which Djay feweft bee fo unhappy.l have a remedy,as they know,
more wife and manly to prefcnbe : but for his freinds and followers
( of which many may deferv juftly to feel themfelvs the unhappines
which they confider not in others ) I fend them by his advice to (it
upon the ftool and ftrain, till their crofs difpofitions and contrarieties
of minde fhall change to a better corrcfpondence, and to a quicker ap-
preherfion of common fcn{e,and thir own good.

His fecond Rcafon is as hQQ^ltSybeetkHfe that grace may change the dif'
fojltioriy therfore no indiffojition may canje divorce*

tAnfw. Firft,itwillnotbee deniable that many pcrfors, gracious
both, may yet happn to bee very unfitly marryed, to the great di-
flurbance of either. Secondly, what if one have grace, the other
not, and will not alter, as the Scripture teftifies ther bee of thofe, in
whom wee may cxped: a change, when the Blackamore changes hu C9^
lour, or the Leefarkhls ffots, Jer. 13.23. (hall the gracious therfore
dwell in torment all bis life, for the ungracious? Wee fee thatho-
lieft precepts, then which ther can no better phyfic bee adminiflerd
to the minde of man, and fet on with powerful! preaching, cannot
work this cure, no not in the family, not in the wife of him that
Preaches day and night to her. What an unrealonable thing it is that
men, and Clergy-men efpecially,(houldcxaAfuch wondrous chan-
ges in another mans houfe, and are feen to work fo little in thir
own?

To the fecond point of the pofition, that this un^tnes hinders the
m^ain ends, and benefits of mariage, heeanfwers, if I mean the unfit"
nes 0fcholery cr/uSendiffoftthn, that foft words according to Solomon,
pacify wrathc

Bur I reply, that the faying of Salomon, is a Proverb frequently
true, notuniverfally, as both the event fhews, and many other fen-
tenccs writtn by the fame Author particularly of ancviilwoman,
Prov, 2 1 , ^, I ^. and in other Chapters, that fliee is better Ihun'd then
dwelt with, and a dtfcrt is preferred before her focicty. What need
the Spirit of God put this choisinto our heads, if foft words could
alwaies take effe^ with her ? How frivolous is, not only this difpu-
ter, but bee that taught him thu$, and let him come abroad.

To his fecond anfwer I return this, that although there bee not cafi-
lyio\xni(achznai$rifathjj as tohate one aether like a to^dtr/oif on, yet

C3 ' that

J4 COLAS tER ION.

tfcattherciscftfucbadifiikeinboth, or cither, to conjugal love, as
hinders :-lX rh^ comfort ot- Matricnoryj ifcars any can bee (b (imple>as
not to appi-ebend. And what cm be that favour, found or not found
in the eyes of the Husband^ but a natural liking or diflikuig, wherof the
Law of God, ^em, 24. beares vvitncs, i^s of anordnary accident,
and determins wifely, and divinely theraftcr. And this difafFeftion
bappning to bee in the one, not without the unfpeakable difcom-
fort of rhc other, duOt hee bee left like a thing confecrated to cala-
mity ,and ddpair without redemption?

Againft the third branch of the pofition hee denies that foiace, and
-peace i which is contrary to di/cerd and variance, is the main endofmariage.
What then ? Hee will have it the foiace of male, and female. Came
this do6lrin out of fom School, or fom (lie ? Who but one forfak'n
of all fenfe and civil nature, and cheifly of Chriftianity , will deny that
peace contrary to difcord, is the calling and the general end of every
Chriftiarj, and of all his adions, and more efpecially of mafiagCf
which is the dearett league of love, and the deareft refemblance of
that love which in Chrift is deareft to his Church ; how then can
peace and comfort, as it is contrary to difcord, which God hates to
dwell wi*h, not bee the main end of mariage? Dilcord then wee
ought to fly, and to purfue peace, farrc above the obfervance of a
civil covnant, already broka, and tlae breaking dayly iterated on the
other (ide. And wkat better teftimony then the words of the inftituti -
on it felf,to prove,that a converiing foiace, & peacefuU fociety is the
prime end of mariage, without which no other help, or office can
bee mutual, befeeming the dignity of rcafonablc creatures, that luch
as they (hould be coupl'd in th e rites of nature by the meer compul-
fionofluft, without love, or peace, wors then wild beafts. Nor
was it fialf fo wifely fpokn, as (ome deem, though ^ufiin fpake it,
thatif God had intended other then copulation in Mariage, he would
fov\Adam have created a freind,n-athcr then a wife,to convers with;
arid our oWn writers blame him for this opinion ; for which and the
like paffages, concerning mariage, hee might bee juftly taxt of ru-
fticuy m thejTc affairs. For this cannot but bee with eafe conceav'd,
that there is one fociety of grave fr eindfhipj and another amiable and
attradive fotiety of conjugal love, befides the deed of procreation,
; which' cjf itself fooncloicsj and is defpis'dy unlefs it bee chcriftic
and le-iiicitcd with a ^leafing conVcrfation. Which if ignoble and

^' ; > fwainifli

C OLAS TERIO N* 15,

fwainifli mindcs cannot apprehend, fliall fuch merit thcrfore to be
the ccnfurcrs of more generous and vertuoas Spirits ?

Againftthelaft point of the pofition, to prove that contrariety of
minde is not a greater caufe of divorce, then corporal frigidity, hee
enters into fuch a tedious and drawling tale of bammg, and httrnlng,
AndlufiandbHrning^ that the dull argument it feiiburncs to, for want
offtirring; and yet all this burning is notable to expelhhe frigidity
of fiis brain. So long therfore, as that caufe in the pofition (hall bee
prov'd a fufficient caufe of divorce,rather then fpend words with this
fieamy cloddofan ^«M^5«/^,morethenofneceffity, and a little mer-
riment, I will not now contend whether it bee a greater caufe then
frigidity,orno.

His next attemptis upon the Arguments which I brought to prove
the pofition. And for the firii:, not finding it of that ftrudare, as to
bee fcalM with his fliort ladder, hee retreats with a bravado, that it
defcrvsnoanfwer. And! as much wonder what the whole book
defcrv'd to bee thus troublM and follicited*by fuch a paitry Solliciter.
I would hee had not caft the gracious eye of his duncery upon the
fmall deferts of a pamflet, whole every line meddi'd witb,uncafes him
to fcorn and laughter.

That which hee takes for the fecond Argument, if hee look teuer,
is no argument, but an indudion to thofe that follow. Then hee
Humbles that I fhould fay, the gentleft ends of Maritge, confelung
that hee underftands it not. And I beleev him heartily : for how
fhould hee, a Servingmanbothby nature and by fundion, an Idiot
by breeding, and a Solliciter by prefumption, ever come to know^
or feel within himfelf. What the meaning is of gentle ? Hee blames
it iov a nedtphrafe^ for nothing angers him more then his own pro-
per contrary. Yet altogether without art fure hee is not 5 for who
could have devis'd to give us more breifly a better defcription of his
own Servility ?

But what will become now of the bufines I know not; for the
liitn is fuddenly takn with a lunacy of Law, and fpeaks revelations
out of the ^tturnejs Acddemjy only frem a lying fpirit : for hee laies
that where 4 th$ng is v^id, ipfo f ado, then needs no lejfal proceeding to make
if void. Whicii is fals, for mariage is void by adultery, or frigidity,
yet not made void wkhout legal proceeding. Then asks my opinion
of fokn4 2iokes,andfohn a Stiles ; and 1 anfwcr him, that I for my

part

1(5 COLJSTb^ ion.

f itt think fohn*Dorff was a bgtter man then both of them: for cer-
tainly, they were the greateft wranglers that ever liv'd, and have ftU'd
allour Law-books with the obtunding (lory of thir fuits and trials.

Afterthis hee tells us a miraculous peec^ of antiquity jhow two iJo-
mans, Tims, and Semfronms made feoffments^ at Rome fure, and levied
Fines by the Common Law. But now his fit of Law paft, yet hardly
come to himfelf, hee maintains, that ^FM^riage hee void, asbecipg
neither of God nor nature, there needs m I gal proceeding to fart it, and
I tell him, that offends not mee; 7hen^ quoth hee, thi^ u no thing
to your hook, (feeing the 11) o&; an and Difciplinof Divorce, But that
I deny him ; for all DifcipUnc is not Icgili that is to fay juridical.but
fomisperfonal, fom Economicil, and foin EcclefiafticaL Laftly,
if I prove that contrary difpofitions arejoyn'd neither of God nor
nature, and fo the mariage ^.yx^M wUgivemfethe contraver/j.J have
prov'ditinthatbooktoaiiy wiemi.i, and without more a doe the
Inftitution proves? it.

Where I anfwer anObJf(^ion ufually mide, that the difpofition
ought to bee known befo»-e mariage, andlhew how difficult it isto
choofeafitconfortj andhow eaiie to miftake, the Servitor would
know what I mean by convcri'ation , declaring his capacity nothing
refin'd fince his Law-puddering, but ftiil the fame it was in the Pan-
try, and at the Drcffer. Shall I argue of coayerfation with this hoy-
d'n to goe and praiflice at his opportunities in theL^rdet? To men
ofqualitylhave faid anou^h, and experience con Srms by daily ex-
ample, that wi{eft,fobrrft,jfuftcfl: men arefomtlmcsmiietabiy mifta-
k'n in thir chois. Whom to leav thus without remedy ,toft and tem-
pefted in a raoft unquiet lea of afflidions and temptations,! fay is moft
unchriftianly.

But hee goes on tountrufs my Arguments, imagining rhcmhis
Maiftcrs points. Only in tbe paffage following, I caoiiot . ui admire
the ripenes, and the pcegnance of nis native trechery^endcavouring
to bee more a Tox then his wit will fuffcr him. Whcr js I breifly men-
tion'd certain heads of Difcours, which I referr d to a placemprc pro-
per according to my method, to bee treated there at full with all thir
Rcaions about them, this Erain-worm againft all the Laws of Dif-
pute, will needs deal with them heer. And as a Country Hinde fom-
timcs ambitious to few his betters that bee is.not fo fimpkasyou
take him, and that hee kiiows his advaatagcs, wtil tc*cli; ttS a new

trick

C 0 L AS TE RIO K. j 7

trick to confute by. And would you think to what a pride hce fwels
in the conccmplation of his rare ftratagem, oifEing to carp at the Ian*
guage of a book, which yet hee confedrs to bee generally com-
mended ; while himfelf will bee acknowledg'd by all that read him,
the baftft and the hungricft endighter, that could take the boldnes to
lookabroad. Obferv now the arrogance oi a groom, how iz will
Dicunt. 1 had writi'n, that common adultery is a thing vVhich the
ranktft Politician would think it (hame and difworfhip that his Law
ftiould countenance. Fir{t, it ofFen Js him that ranktft (hould fighi-
fy ought, but his own fmell ; who, that knows SngHJh, would not
undcrftand mec, whcnifay arankSerying-inan, a rank pctti-fog-
ger, to mean a mecr Servingman, a meer and arrant petti-foggeir ,
who lately waslo hardy, as to lay afide his buckram walkt, and make
himfelfa fool in Print, with confuting books, which are above hifn.
Ntxt the word Politician is not ui'd to his maw, and thcrapon hce
plaics the moft notorious hobbihor$,jefting and frisking in the luxu-
ry of his non-fenle with fach poor fetches to cog a laughter from us,
that no antic hobnaile at a Morris, but is more hanfomly faceti-
ous.

Concerning that place Deut. 24. i. which hee faith to bee the
ntMtnfillsrofmjofimcm^ though I rely more on the inftitution then
on that. Thefe two pillars I doe indeed confefs are to mce as thole
two in the porch of the 'X^m^lt^Jachin and ^tf<«^, which names import
eftabliftiment, and ftrcngth; nor doe I fear, who can £hake them.
The expofition of *Z)r*r. which I brought, is the receav'd Expofi-
tion both ancient and modern, by all lerned men, unlefsit bee a Mon-
kifh Papift hecr and there : and the gIo6 which hee and his obfcure
tfliftant would pctfwade us to, is meerly new, and abfurd,prefumiDg
out of his utter ignorance in the Ebrew, to interpret thofc words of
theTcxt, firftinamiftaknferfe of uncUannefSy againft al approved
Writers. Secondly, in a limited fenfe, when as the original fpeaks
without limitation, f^mc nncleAnnes^or 4hj i and ic had bin a wife Law
indeed to mean it klf particular, and not to cxprcfs the cafe which
this acute Rabbie hath all this while bin hooking for. Wherby they
who are moll partial to him, may guefs that fomthing is in this doc-
trin which I allege,that forces the adverfary to fuch a new & ftrain'd
Expofition, wherin hee docs nothing for above foure pages . but
founder himfelf to and fro in his own objeftions, one While denying

D that

j^' COL AS T E R J 0 N.

thai dh<yYC€'^as prmitted^ another while affirming, th^t it i»su fer^
mitred for the mvfs f^ke. and aker all diftrulls himfelf. And For his
lureft retirement, betakes him to thofc old fuppofitions, that Chrifi a-
bolip^t the Mofalc Law of divorce ; that the Jews had not fufficient kpovp'
ledqe in thu poi»t, through the dark^ies of the di^enjatim of heavnlj things;
that tinder the f lent ecus grace of the Gofpe/, X^ee are tfd by cruellefi com"
tulfton^ to live in mariage till death, with the wickedefi, the worjt, the
moft verfcctning mate, Thefe ignorant and doting furmifes, he might
have read confuted at large, eevn in the firft Edition; but found
it fafertopafs that part over in filence. So that they who fee not
tbefotridmesof this his nev/ and tedious Expofition, are worthy to
love it dearly.

His Explanation don, hec charges mee with a wicked glofs, andaU
mofi hU/phemjfy for faying that Chrift in teaching meant not always to
bee tak'n word for word ; but like a v/ife Phyfician adminiftring one
excefs againfi: another, to reduce us to a perfet mean. Certainly to
teach thus, were no diGioneil method: Chrift himfelf hath often
us'd hyperhoHes in his teaching ; and graveft Authors^ both Ariflotle
in the lecond of hts Ethics to Nichomachus, and Seneca in bis (evcnth
'De*3eneficiu. advife us to ftretch cut the line of precept oft times
beyond mea fare, that while wee tend furder, the mean might bee
the eafier attained. And who-ever comments that fifth of Matthew,
when hee comes to the turning of cheek, after chce^^ to hld^t, and the
parting both with cloak, and coat, if any pleafc to bee the rifler, will bee
forc'c to recommend himfelfto the fame Expofition, though this ca-
tering Law-monger bee bold to call it wicked. Now note another
pretious peece of him ; Chrif}, faith hee, doth not faj that an unchafl
Uok^ is adulter J ^ but the luffing after her * aS if the looking unchafl-
ly, could bee without lulling. This gear is Liccnc*t for good rca-
K)n : Imprimatur,

■ Next hee would prove that tbefpcech of Chrift is notutter'd in ex-
cefs againfi: the Pharifcs, Eirft, Bscatife hee fpeakj it to his 'Difciplet^
Matih, 5/ which is fils, for hee fpake it to the multitude, as by the
iiift ^'fr/. is evident, among which in all likelihood weremany Pha-
rifes, tutcutof doubr, all of them Phariiseandifciples, and bred up
'r^heir D^dlrin; from which extremes of error and falfity, Chrift
,•„ v..;^;: : ut his whole Sermon labours to reclaim the people. Se-
%2^r|^|v a^ith Ix^i'BecaUfe (^hrifl forbidds net only jutting ayMj, but

marrj'

CO L ^ STB R 1 0 N. rg

tytarrjifig her who is fat away. Acutely, as \i the Pharifts might ^
not have offended as much in marrying the divorcdj as in divor"
cing thcmaried. The precept may bind all, rightly underftood;
and yet the vehement manner of giving it, may bee occafionM only
by the Pharifes.

Finally, hee windes up Ms Ttxt with much doubt and trepidation ;
for it may bee his trenchers were not Icrap't, and that which never
yet afforded corn of favour to his noddle, the Salt4eUer was not*
rubb'd: andtherfore in this hafl eafily granting, that: his anfwers fdll
fouleufon each other, and praying,y ou vvould not thhik hee Writes as a -
profit, bnt 04 a man, hee runns to the black jackjfills his flagon,(preds
the table,and fervs up dinner.

^ After waiting and voiding, hee thinks to void my fecond Argu-
ment, and the contradi(flions that will follows both in the Law and
Gofpel, if the cJK^,/^/^ Law were abrogated by our Saviour, and a
compuKive prohibition fixtinfteads andfingshis old fon^, that the
go/pel counts kniar^ffili that "^hich the Larv alloyif'ciy inftancing in (f«V-
cftmcifion. Sacrifices, fTaJhings. But what are thtfe Ceremonial
things to the changing of a morall point in houHiold diitic,eqaally
belonging to Jew and Gentile ; divorce was then right,now wrong;
then permitted in therigoroustimeof Law, now forbidd'n by Law
eevn to the mod extremely abided in the favourable time of grace
and freedon:. Bat this is not for an unbuttoned fellovy to dikufs in
the Garret, at his trefsle, and dimenfion of candle by the fnuffe ;
which brought forth his cuUionly paraphrafe on St. P#««/, whom he
brings in, difcourfing fuch idle ftuft' to the Maids, and vyiddom, as
his own (ervilc inurbanity forbeares not to put into the Apoftles
mouth, of thefoHles converfing % and this hee prefumes to doe beeing
a bayard, who never had the foul to know, what convcr(ing means,
bat as his provender, and the familiarity of the Kitchin fchool'd his
conceptions.

HeepafTesto thethird Argument, like a Boar in a Vinyard, doing
nought els, but ftillas hee goes, champing and chewing over, what
I could mean by this C^iWr^ of a fit converfing Soul, notions and
words never made for thofe chopps ; but like a generous Wine,on-
ly by overworking the fettl'd mudd of his fancy, to make him drunk,
and difgorge his vilenefs the more openly. All perions of gentle
bre<;din2 ( I fay gentle, though this Barrow ifunt at th« word ) I

D 2 know

^ CO L ASTE RION,

know will appr€hcndandbeefatisfy*din what I fpakc,how unplca-
fing and difcomenting the fociety of body mud needs be between
thofewhofcmindes cannot bee fociable. But what fhould a man fay
more to a fnout in this pickle^what language can be low and dcgene-
rat anough f

The fourth Argument which I had, was, that Mariagc beeing a
Govnant, the very bceing whcrof conilfts in the performance of un-
fainedlovc and peace, if that were not tolerably performed ^ the
Covnant became broke and revocable. Which how can any in whole
lainde the principles of right rcalon and jufticc arc not cancellM, de-
ay; for how can a thing fubfift, when the true effence therof is diC-
foiy'd? yet this hee denies, and yet in fuch a manner as alters my
aflertion, for hee puts in, though tbemaitt end he not attained in Jul
meafure : but my pofiiipn !S,if it be not tolerably attain'd,as through-
cmt the whole Difcours is apparent.

Now for his Reafons ; Hem*n found not that fsace and foUcet ivbkk
kthe main end of communion with god, Jhould hee therjore Ifrenk^ ofthst
spmmunton f

I anfwer, that if Neman found it not> the fault was certainly his
own : but in Mariage it happns farrc otherwife : Somtimes the
fault is plainly not his who feeks Divorce : Somtimes it cannot bee
difccrn'd, whofe fault it is ; andtherforccaimotinrca(on or equity
bee the matter of aa abfolute prohibition^

His other inftince declares, what a right handicrafts man hee is
of petty cafes, and how unfitt to bee ought els at higheft, but a hac-
ney of the Law. / change houfes with a man • it is fuppos'd J doe it for
mineovn ends* 1 attain them not in thuhnufe » I [hall not therfore goe
frcmmj bargain. How without fear might the young Channus in
%/fndria now cry out, rvhat likenes can bee heer to a Manage ? In this
bargain was no capitulation, but theyeilding ot pofleflion to one an-
other, whciin each of them had his leveral endap&it; in Maviage
there is a lolcmn vow of love and fidelity each to other.- this bargain
is fully accomplifht in the change ; In Manage the Ccvrunt dill is
in performing. If one of them perform nothing tokrablvg but intiead
of love, abound in difaflfe^ion, difobedience, if aui, and hftred,vi'hat
thing in the nature of a covnant (hall bind the other to fuch u p.^rdiir
Table mifcheif ? Keep to your Problcmcs of ten groats, tOefe m ; :rs
%i^ not for pragtnatics^and folkmooters to babbie io*

COLAS T ER I 0 N/ u^

Concerring the place of Pau/^thzt godhathcaS'dusupeace^tCoro
7. ind thcrfore certainly, if any where in this world, wee have a
right to claim it reafonably in tnariagc, tis plain anoagh in the fenfe
which I gave, and confefsM by Par^us^znd other Orthodox Divines,
to bee a good fenfe, and this Anfwerer, doth not weak'n v. The
other place, that hce whshateth, may fut 4jr^7,which, i^ I (hew hiir,
he promifestoyeeld the whole controverfie.is, befides, 'Deut 34. 1 .
'Dcut, 21, 14 and bekjre this, Exod,ii. 8. Of CMaUchy I havi* fpo
k'n more in another place; and fay again that the beft interpreters,
all the ancient, and mod of the modern tranflate it, as I cited,and very
few otherwife, wherof perhaps Junms is the chei^.

Another thing troubles him, thatmariage is called the myftery of
Joy. Let it dill trouble him ; for what hath hee to doc cither with
joy , or with my ftery ? He thinks it frdntic divinity to fay,Tt is not the
outward continuance of mariage, that keeps the covnant of mariagc
whole, bat whofoever doih moft according to peace and love, whe-
ther in mariage or divo ce, hee breaks mariage left. If I (hill fpell it
to him, Hee ireaks martAgg Ufi^ is to fay, bee dilhonours not mariage;
fox leafi is tak*n i«i the Bible, and other good Authors, for, nctataS,
And a particular ma iige a man may break, if for a lawful! caufe, and
yet not break, that is, not violate^ or dishonour the Ordnance of
Mariage. Hence thofe two queftions that follow, are left ridicu-
lous; and the Maids dt -^/^^rr, whom hee flouts, are likely to have
more witt then the Servingman at AddJegate.

Whereas hee taxes mec of adding to the Scripture in that I faid,
Love only is the fulfilling of every Commandment, I cited no parti-
cular Scripture, but fpake a general fenfe, which might bee coHcft-
ed from many places. For feeing love includes Faith, what is ther
that can fulfill every commandment but only love ? And I meant, as
any intelligent Reader might apprehend, every pofitive, and civil
commandment, wherofChrift hath taught as that w4i»*f tbt Lord, It
is not the formal duty of worfhip, or the fitting flill, that keeps the
holy reft of Sabbath ; but whofoever doth mofl according to charity,
whether hee work, or work not ; hee breaks the holy reft of Sabbath
leafl. So Mariage beeing a civil Ordinance made for man, not man
for it; hee who doth that which moft accords with charity, firft to
himfelf, next to whom hee next o ws it, whether in mariage or di-
vorce, hee breaks the Ordinance of mariage leaft. And what inRc-

D I "" ligious.

tz COLAsTE^lOi^.

Hgioa^ prudence, can bee charity tohimlelf, and what to his Wife,
cither in continuing, orindiffolving themariage knot, hath binal-
ready oft anoughdi(cours*d. So that what St. T^«f/ faith of circuai-
cifion, thefamelfticknot to fay of a ciyil ordinance, made to the
go.®d, and comfort of man, not to his ruin ; mariage is nothing, and
divoice is nothing, btitfaltb,ii»kichmrkethb]f love. And this J tiuft
none can miftake.

Againft the fifth Argument, That a Chriftian in a higher order of
Preift- h0od,then that Levitical,is a perfon dedicat to / oy and peace;
and tberfore needs not in Subjciflion to a civil Ordinance, made to
no other end but for his good ( when without his fault hee findes it
impoflible to bee decently or tolerably obferv d ) to plung'^ himfclf
intoimmeafurablediftradions and temptations, above his ftrength;
againft this hec proves nothing, bu^ gadds into filly conj-(flurts of
what abufes would follow, and with as good reafon migijt declaim
againft the beft things that are.

Againft the fixt Argument, that to force the continuance of mari-
age between mindes found utterly unfit,and difproportional,is againft
naeure, and feems forbidd under that allegorical x^xtc^^t oi Mefes^
Tiet tofowa field mth divers feed^^ left both bee defil'd, not to f lough
wlthanO^-e and an Afs together, which I deduced by the pattern of St.
P^«/j reatoning what was meant by nBtmuz.z.ling theOxe^ hee ram-
bles over a long narration, to tell us that by the Oxen are meant the
Tr^achers : which is not doubted. Then hec demands, ifthi^ my rea-
foningbee Hie St, Tanls, and I anfwer him, yes. Hee replies that/un
St. i'aHlrvouldbeeaJham'd to reafon thm. And I tell him. No. Hee
grants that place which lalleg'd, iCor.e. of unequal yoking, w^jf
a/hide to that of Mofcs, but faies, I cannot frove it makes to my furfos,
and (hews no^ firft, bc.v; hee can difprovc it. Waigb,Gentlemen,and
confider, w.KeiMer my ^ ffir.m'ations, backt with reafon, msy hold baU
knee.' sg-inft the i^ane dcriials of. this ponderous confuter, eleded by
his gboftly Patrons to bee my copes-mate.

Proceeding on to fpe^k of snyfterious things in nature, I hadoc-
hon to fit.the UDgu ig^^ xheraf ter, tioaf ^ers not for the reading of this o-
6im^ fool, v/ba, thi •> ever whcnthee meets with ought above the cc-
Pkation of his brecdiog, havs the noyfom f>ench cf hisrudeflothe-
hiod.him, maligningthat any thing fhould bee ipoks or undcrftood,
kbo'^Q'^\so\Yn^*(^enpim baknes ; and gives ientencc that bis confu-

,C 0 LA S7BR1 Ob!. J I

ting hath bin icnploy'M about 4Jrothy^ immerhoHs and unde[ervir}g dip^
vonrs. Who Could havebeleevd Toi much infoknce durft vent it fdF
from out the bide of a varlet, asthus tocenfure that which men of
mature judgement have applauded to bee writ with good reafon. But
this contents him aof, hec falls now to rave in his barbarous abufi ve-
nes; and why? areafon befitting fuch an Artificer, beciufchefjich
the'Book ^ centrarj to ^Hhnman Icrning'^ When as the world knows
that all, both human and divine lerning, till the Canon Law, aliow'd
divorce by confent, and for many CAules without confent. Next he
dooms i' 3 ^ contrary to Trnth ;when as it hath bin difputable among
Icrnedmcn, ever fince it was prohibitca : and is by Peter Martjr
thought an tf/?m5« not impious^ i fit hard to Ine refuted'^ and by Eraf-
f7?«rdeem*da Dodrin /^ charitalfieaftdpiouf, as, if it cannot bee ns'd,
ifcere to bee m/ht it could; but is by LMartin *Bftcery a man of dearefl: and
mod religious memory ii the Church, taught and maintanM to bee
cither moft iawfuUy us'd, ormoft lawfully permitted. And for this,
for I affirm no more then Bucer, what cenfuredoe you think, Readers
he hath condemned the bookto?To a death no lefs infamous then to be
burnt by thehan£man,Uv>L\ccncery for I deal not now with this caitif,
never worth my earned, & now not fcafonable for my j sft , you arc re-
puted a man difcrect anough,religious anough,honell anough, that is,
to an ordnary competence in all thcfe. But now your turn is,to hear
what your own hand hath earned ye, that when you fuffcr'd this
nameles hangman to caft into public fuch a defpigbtfull contumely
upon a name and perfon deferving of the Church and State equally
to your felf, and one who hath don more to theprefent advancement
of your own Tribe, then you or many of them have don for them-
felvs, you forgot to bee either honeft. Religious, or difcrcet. What
ever the State might doc concerning it, fuppos'd a matter tocxpcft
evill from, I fhould not doubt to meet among them with wife, and
honourable, a ad knowing men. But as to this brute Libel, fo much
the more impudent and Uwlcfs for the abus'd autority which it bears,
I fay again, that I abominat the cenfure of RafcaUs and their Li-
cencers.

With difficulty I return to what remains ©f this ignoble task, for
the difdain I have to change a period more with the filth and venom
of this gourmand, fwell'd into a confuttr. Yet for the fatisfaftion of
others, I endure all thiso. .

AgainM:

24 COLAStERION.

Againft the fcventh Argumcnt.that if the Canon taw and Divhses
allow diTorce for confpiracf of death, they may as well allow it to
avoid the faiBe confequencc from the likelihood of naturall caufcs;

Firft, hee denies that the Canon (o decrees.

I An(wcr,that it decrees for danger of life, as much as for adultery.
Secret. GregoKL^ tit. ip. and in other places: and the beft Civi-
lians who cite the Canon Law, fo colleA, zs Schneidewin in inftitnt,
tip^i e. p. 4. de divort* and indeed who would raave deny'd it, but one
of a reprobate ignorance in all hee meddles with.

Secondly, hee faith, the cafe alters, for there the offender whofeek^s
the Ufe^difth tntf licit Ij 4t letifi aU a divarce.

And 1 anfwer, that heer nature though no offender, doth the fame.
But if anGficndevi'y a5Hft^ a divorce, (hall releaft the offended, this
is an ample grant againft himfelf. Hee faith, HAtare teacheth to [av^
life from one vi4)ofeeks it. And I fay (he teaches no lefs to favc it from
any other caufe that endangers it, Hee faith, thdt heer they are both
aSlors, Admit they were, it would not be uncharitable to part them;
yet fomtimes they are not both adors, but tht one of them moft la-
mentedly pa Hive. So hee concludes, JVee muft not takf advantdqe of
our own faults and corruptions to relea/e us from our duties. But uiall
wee take no advantage to fave our felvs from the faults of ano-
ther, who hath anull'd his right to oar duty? No, faith hee. Let
them die of the fuHens, and try who wiSfitty them. Barbarian,the Qiame
of all honeil Atturneys, why doe they not hoifs him over the barre,
and blanket hi n ?

Againft the eighth Argument, that they who arc deftiiuteof all
mariageable guifts, except a body not plainly unfit, have not the cal-
ling to marry, and confequer^tly married and fo found, may bee di-
vo?c'd, this, hee faith, is nothing to the fu^pofe^ and not fit to bee
anhveri. I ieav it therforeto the judgement of his Maifters.

Ag^ii.ft the ninth Argument, that mariage is a human fociety, and
fjchtifly fwted iw agreement and unity of minde: If thctforethe
mindc^ cannot ha vt? that due fociffy by mariigc, that it may reafona-
bly and humanly d dire, it can bee no human fociety, and fo not with-
out reafcndivorcible, heer hee faHilieF, and turnes what thepofiti-
on reqirr'd of a realonable agreement in the main matters of fociety,
i.'Uo an agreement in all things, which makes thc opinion not mine,
aridfohccicivsir.

At

C OLAS T ER 10 N^ ^5

AtUft, and in good howr we are com to his farewell, which is tc»
bee a concluding tafte of his;abbcrment«tin Law, the fladiiefl and
tlie fcfticft that ever corrupted in fuch an unfwill'd hogshead.

Againftnny tenth Argument, as he calls it, but as I intended it, my
other pofition, that Divorce is not a thing determinable by a compul-
fiveLaw, for that all Law is for fom good that may be frequently at-
tain'd without theadmixture of a wors inconvenience; but the Law
forbidding divorce, never attains to any good end of fuch prohibi-
tion, but rather multiplies cvill; therfore,the prohibition of divorce
is no good Law. Now for his Atturneys prife : but fir[t,like a right
cunning and fturdy Logician, bee denies my Argument not mattering
whither in the major ox mincrx and faith, there are mm) Laws made
jor £6od, and jet that goed is not atta'm'a, through the defaults ef ths
J4rtj, but a greater iftconvenlettce fejloyvs.

But I reply that this Anfwer builds upon a (hallow foundation.and
moft unjuftiy fuppofes every one in default, who feeks divorce from
themoft injurious wcdloc The default therfore will bee found in
the Law it feif ; which is neither able to punilh the offender, but xht
innocent muft withall fuffer ; nor can right the innocent, in what is
cheifly fought, the obtainmcnt of love or quietnes. His inftances
out of the Common Law, are all fo quite befidethe matter which
hee would prove, asmay bee a warning to allclients bow they ven-
ture thir bufines withluch a cock-braind Solliciter. For becingto
fliewfom Law of ^»j/<««^,attaining to no good end, and yet through
no default of the party, who is therby deban'd all remedy, bee (hews
us only bow fom doe loos the benefit of good Laws through ifeeir
own default. Hisfitft cxaniple faith, Jtis a jufi Law that every oxe
fhall feaceably enjoy his efiatein Lmds or otherwije. Does fliis Law at-
taintonogood end? the Barr will blu(h at this mcft ir cogitant
woodcock. But fee if a draft ok Littleton will recover him to his fen-
k^. If this man having Tee ftmfle inhi^ Lar.ds^ yet mil take a Lcm of
hii^ OTvn Lands^ from another^ this p^all hee an Efloffel to him ni an Affije
from the recovering of his on^n Land, Mark now, and regiiler him.
How many are thereof ten th'oufand who have lach a Pee fimple in
theirfconfe, as to take aLeiasof :heir own Lands fmmanorher? So
that this inconvenience lights upon fears one in an age, and by his
own default 5 and the Law of enjoying each man his own, ts good
to all others. Buc on the contrary, this prohibition of divorce is t^cod

ro none, and brings inconvenience to numbers, who lie uqcJw ipto-
lerible greevancess without thir own default^ through the wi^ed-
nesor folly of another s and all this iniquity the Law remedi<5S not,
but in a manner mamtiiins ? His other cafes ar^dirc^ly to the fame
purpcs. and might have bin fpar^d, but that hee isa tradfman ofthq
Law, and muft be born with at his firft fetting up.^to lay f Qrthfeis b^ft
ware,wiiicbisoniy gibbnih.

I have now don that, which for many caufes I might have thought,
could not hkely have bin my Jortane, to bee put to this under^worii
of fcowring and unruhbifaing the low ^n^ fordid ignorance oi fuch
a prefumptuous lo:£eL Yet ^'^ersuks had the labour once imposM
upon him to carry dung out of the ^•^^tig^^n iUble« At any h^nd I
would bee ridd of him % for I had rather, fuxe the life of m%vi i$
liknMtoaScene, that all my entrances and ^mts might vm^ with
luchperfonsonly, whofe worth ere^s thecn and thejr aftions to a
grave and tragic deportment, and notti> have to doe with Chw^sand
Vices, But if'a tnsn cannot paace^Wy walk into the world^but jnuft
bee infcHed, Ibmtimes at his hce , with dorrs mi botsfiitSj fo(n«
times benestb, with bauling whippets, und Caa>hdtkm^ and thde
to beefet on by plot and confuUatian withji fm^^ of Ckrs^j^men
and Lieencers, comsieoded alfo snd rejo^c'da by thofe whom par-
iliiity cannot yet forgoe old papiftieall prindpks^ have X notcauft
to bee in fuch a manner defenfive, si miiy procure* meefreedoiji cq
pafsmoreunmolelled hecrafcer bythcfe incumbranGe^'* nut fa much
regarded for themfelvs, s& for taoCc who f rxife ihem» And what de-
fence can properly beeus*din fach a defpicabk encounter si this,
but either the flap or the fpui n } If they ctn afford mee none but a ri«
dicalous advcrfary , the blame beioiigs not to meej ttioa^^h the whole
DKputc bee ftrewM and (catter^d with ridicuious. And ii hee h%VQ
facb an ambition to know no better, who nre his muts^ but among
thofe needy thoughts, which though his two foculties of Serving*
man and Soliicitcrs ilioald compound into one mongrdj would bee
but thin and meaner, it in this penury oi Soul hecC^n Dec poiflbk
to have the luftinels to think offame^ let him but fend mechowbet
calls himfclf, and I may chance not failto endurfe himojitheback*
Cide of poiterityj not a j^^/^^'^j but g bra!?,gn Afc Since myht^ ex*
torts ^rommee'a talent offport, which I had thought tohtd^in*
napkin, hee (hill bee my B^trachomHom^^hk^ my Savim^ my C<i*

coLJSTBniom . ty

iandrm^ thecotnmonadagy of ignorance and over^weenlng. Nay
perhaps, as the provocation may bee, I may bee driv'n to curie up
this gUding profe into a rough Seta^Qj that {hall rime him into fuch
a condition, asinftead of judging good Books to bee burnt hy th^
c%ecutioner,hee {hall be readier to be his own hangman. Ti>iu$ much
to this Nuifame.

But as for the Subject it (elf which I have write, and now defend,
according as the oppopition beares, if any man equal to the matter
(ball think it appertains him to take in hand this controverfy, either
excepting agiintt ought v/ntt'D^ orpcrfv/aded hce can fnew be:ttr
how thisqueftion of foch moment to bee throughly known may re«
ceav a t/ue determination, not leaning on the old and rottn fiigge*'
ftions whcron it yet leanef^ it his intents bee (incere to the pubiic,and
ft^all carry him on without bitternes to the opinion, or to thepcrfoa
diffenting, let him not, I entreate him, guefs by the handling,which
meritorioufly hath bin beftowd oa this ob jeft of contempt and laugh-
ter, that I account it any difpkafiire don mee to bee contradicted in
Print % but ag it leads to the attainment of any thing more true, (hall
eftesmiti benefit i and ihall know how to return his civility and
falrc Argument in fuah a forta as hee (hall confefs that to doe fo is my
choife, and to have don thus was my chance*

The End.

a » '